From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Phobia/Alcohol info needed!
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:33:44 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1a7libINNa80@smaug.West.Sun.COM>, dab@ism.isc.com (Dave Butterfield) writes:
>>>>>> This is a made up fact pattern, so don't worry about helping a
>>>>>> murderer get back out on the street.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Should we not worry about helping a future lawyer practice the
>>>>> art of getting murderers back out on the street?
> 
> Based on your response I think you may have misread the tone of my
> original reply to your message.  I apologize for not communicating
> well enough.  The tone of my original response was not intended as
> chastisement.  I'll explain my point better, not intended as debate,
> which you didn't come here for, but just for the record.  It even
> mildly relates to psychology, since we're talking about people's
> motivations and behavior.
> 
> I don't believe that the question of the client's guilt is connected
> with the question of whether his rights were violated.  As I realized,
> and you pointed out, some people have biases that would cause their
> perception of guilt to interfere with their motivation or ability to
> help accurately determine whether rights were violated.
> 
> For those people who separate the two questions, your disclaimer
> isn't needed, because it's not relevant to them.  I assume you
> were therefore addressing the others.  For those others:
> 
> It seemed to me that if an individual had a moral or ethical
> objection to helping a murderer get back out on the street, and he
> thought things through, then it would also be reasonable to assume
> that he might not want to help other people learn how to help
> murderers get back out on the street.  In other words, if that
> individual *consistently* holds his bias, and thinks about the
> possible future consequences of helping someone to learn that
> skill, it seems to me that he might not want to provide that help.

True. I am going into prosecution because I would not feel the least bit
correct about helping spring a murderer. I might not like the way police
treated him, but to help him walk free to kill and rape again because someone
violated his right? Sorry can't reconcile. Send the police in for more
training, automatic suspension and fine the force, no problem.

Him walk? Me help? Not a murderer. And not unless the actions of the police
were worse (taking into account their repetition of these actions upon the
other innocent parties) than the crime, I can't reconcile.

I want a fair and just system. But I could not reconcile the next victim as a
price to be paid for liberty.


> 
> On the other hand, many people don't think through the consequences
> of their actions, and might not notice indirectly helping some
> murderer in the future, while they *would* notice directly helping
> one in the present.  Some of those people might choose different
> courses of action if they were to become aware of that indirect-help
> possibility.
> 
> The core of the meaning of the question in my two-line message was
> to illuminate that possibility.  Everyone was free to evaluate it
> for himself.  I made no judgement.
> 
>>Now, can we drop this flame fest?
> 
> I do not believe that my two-line message constituted a flame.  Your
> response to it did.  Please consider reviewing the posting sequence
> and deciding for yourself whence the first flame flew.

Actually, your two line response was not designed to illuminate said
possibility. Let's examine your syntax.

You did not satrt of by saying, "Isn't it true that people might not want to
help you learn your craft out of fear that you will be better at it in the
future, thus they will be prevented by their bias from helping you now?" That
is plainly saying what you were advocating.

However, you did not say it that way. You started with, "Should we not worry
about...", and your question was not an open ended one, but a leading question
(yes or no answer). I had two choices if I were to answer the question you did,
in fact, ask. I could answer yes you should worry, or no you should not worry.

Clearly as neither answer could ever be correct, your question was hinting at
something else.

Perhaps it was hinting at what you really meant, perhaps it was hinting that
you felt that a person should not help a lawyer learn his craft (the way it
came across to me) so as to help prevent me from having skills in the future.

Hmm...two possibilites with no indicators...no, I take that back, your sig line
read soemthing like "Only follow the rules as a last resort." whihc seems to be
a statement one who is more anarchist than a constructionist would hold.

In my post, I was striving to acquire information to help the accused because
the police did not folow a rule (technicality?). You expressed a disdain for
rules. That was coupled with a statement which questioned (and was the only
expressed question) whether or not people should help a lawyer learn the rules,
as he will only use them to free the guilty.

Should I go on?

When I was in journalism, a lecturer once spoke about the Bozo School of
Journalism. One of the concepts it held is that when an author writes something
which is ambiguious, or relays the wrong impression, so that the average reader
can not tell what the author meant, it is not the readers fault for not gaining
the clear meaning.

And, remember that a rhetorical question ONLY works if it is held up against
the intended outcome.

> 
> Dave
> -- 
>                      Vote for *anybody* but Quayle!

Why? Unlike Bush who is semi-competent, Quayle is so grossly incompetent that
he might be unable to even find his desk when the scret service were to escort
him into the oval office.