Which is itself fine, until you take into account the long and ongoing history of the way that immigrants, marginalized demographics, and particularly immigrants from marginalized groups are treated by our justice system, whether or not they’ve actually committed a serious crime or any crime at all.
I’ve started rolling my eyes at “Who decides?” prompts. Whether it’s judging people, interpreting laws, etc.
PEOPLE. People process your grocery purchase at checkout, and verify you found everything okay. People determine whether the charge of murder is substantially proven and justified. People evaluate a person’s immigration application.
This is not a brand new science. Fallible, sure. Imperfect, sure. Useless, absolutely not.
Thank you for responding. My “who decides” comment was an unuseful shortand for what I wanted to express, which is that I don’t have much trust in our institutions to carry out the will of the people.
My response to that clarification is the same as my first response. The institutions we use to represent our wills are made up of people, just like us. In the end, it comes down to distrust of other people; be it those you see as “Government people” or “Other side people”.
If your problem with a new system is that you don’t trust the decisions made by other people, I think ultimately that is the real issue - and it can either be considered an issue with your own levels of trust, or issues with people’s trustworthiness. One way or another, society will rely on systems run by itself.
“if those people turn out to be decent and moral”
Who decides? Yikes.
‘Not a rapist, tax cheat, or murderer’ seems like a pretty low bar that most could manage to get over.
Which is itself fine, until you take into account the long and ongoing history of the way that immigrants, marginalized demographics, and particularly immigrants from marginalized groups are treated by our justice system, whether or not they’ve actually committed a serious crime or any crime at all.
Rephrase it to: fit for our justice system
I’ve started rolling my eyes at “Who decides?” prompts. Whether it’s judging people, interpreting laws, etc.
PEOPLE. People process your grocery purchase at checkout, and verify you found everything okay. People determine whether the charge of murder is substantially proven and justified. People evaluate a person’s immigration application.
This is not a brand new science. Fallible, sure. Imperfect, sure. Useless, absolutely not.
Thank you for responding. My “who decides” comment was an unuseful shortand for what I wanted to express, which is that I don’t have much trust in our institutions to carry out the will of the people.
My response to that clarification is the same as my first response. The institutions we use to represent our wills are made up of people, just like us. In the end, it comes down to distrust of other people; be it those you see as “Government people” or “Other side people”.
If your problem with a new system is that you don’t trust the decisions made by other people, I think ultimately that is the real issue - and it can either be considered an issue with your own levels of trust, or issues with people’s trustworthiness. One way or another, society will rely on systems run by itself.
Yes, the real issue is trust. Agreed. The Supreme Court is my example of mistrust.
I hope you read this as a continuing discussion, not an argument.