Deeply Religious People Must be barred from positions of Power in The Justice System!

[Uberpod]

Deeply religious persons cannot transcend their bias by definition. Take for example these two cases where there was a miscarriage of justice. Both involve belief in demonic experiences that took precedence over evidence. When you become accustomed to absolute beliefs in something with no evidence how can you be expected to evaluate guilt or innocence in the real world?

Shame on Police officers James Sudbury and Steve Jones and Judge Burnette!! in the Memphis five case.

Shame on Giuliano Mignini !!!!!! Amanda Knox case.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Deeply religious persons cannot transcend their bias by definition. Take for example these two cases where there was a miscarriage of justice. Both involve belief in demonic experiences that took precedence over evidence. When you become accustomed to absolute beliefs in something with no evidence how can you be expected to evaluate guilt or innocence in the real world?

Shame on Police officers James Sudbury and Steve Jones!! in the Memphis five case.

View attachment 7519




Shame on Giuliano Mignini !!!!!! Amanda Knox case.
View attachment 7517View attachment 7518

How would you actually legislate this... wait... I think I can see freedom of speech scrunched up into a paper ball and being thrown into a bin!

If deeply held religious beliefs actually affected a person's judgement of cases, you'd think it would be picked up before they actually became a prosecutor or judge. Those who do let religious beliefs take precedence over evidence in a court aren't doing their jobs properly. You can't prevent a religious person from having a position in the justice system, however, when they haven't done anything. Your two cases are eclipsed by the thousands of people in the justice system who are out there and have religious beliefs and do a dandy fine job.

 

[Riverwolf]

Perhaps then we should bar anyone who has any sort of deeply held conviction, religious or otherwise (well, except in justice, perhaps). Even people who deeply, personally believe in the US constitution. They wouldn't be able to transcend their bias.

 

[Uberpod]

Perhaps then we should bar anyone who has any sort of deeply held conviction, religious or otherwise (well, except in justice, perhaps). Even people who deeply, personally believe in the US constitution. They wouldn't be able to transcend their bias.

Maybe so. Dedication toward truth must be the greatest conviction, ie no preconceived notions beyond empiricism.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Deeply religious persons cannot transcend their bias by definition.

Rubbish.

 

[Riverwolf]

Maybe so. Dedication toward truth must be the greatest conviction, ie no preconceived notions beyond empiricism.

In other words, let's just take the human element out altogether and instill some justice-robots.

 

[sojourner]

Rubbish.

Short. Concise. To the point. Thank you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Deeply religious persons cannot transcend their bias by definition.

Ya gotta love it when somebody stupidly taints with a broad brush while railing agains bias.

 

[Uberpod]

In other words, let's just take the human element out altogether and instill some justice-robots.

Not exactly. The capacity to be rational is a human element. But- yes- computer analyzed probability calculations, etc would be beneficial. Eye witness testimony should be appropriately de-emphasized.

 

[Uberpod]

Ya gotta love it when somebody stupidly taints with a broad brush while railing against bias.

By specifying deeply religious folks I paint with an appropriately narrow brush. Moderately religious people would be expected to function in a more balanced fashion.

 

[Revoltingest]

By specifying deeply religious folks I paint with an appropriately narrow brush. Moderately religious people would be expected to function in a more balanced fashion.

If a deeply religious person agrees to uphold the tenets of the justice system, & performs accordingly (perhaps subverting some of their own beliefs), then they can (& do) serve. And has been pointed out before, there's no practical way to implement this form of discrimination.

 

[Valjean]

We (presumably) use psych testing on police academy applicants. Should we do the same with those seeking to regulate our lives and the country's foreign policy? This would put the focus on an individual's underlying psychology rather than a single trait that may correlate with problematic behavior.

Maybe we should bar individuals with high Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) or Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) scores from positions of power, or, If we object to a fixed cut-off score, at least make these scores a matter of public record.

Right-wing authoritarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Social dominance orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Revoltingest]

We (presumably) use psych testing on police academy applicants. Should we do the same with those seeking to regulate our lives and the country's foreign policy? This would put the focus on an individual's underlying psychology rather than a single trait that may correlate with problematic behavior.

Maybe we should bar individuals with high Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) or Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) scores from positions of power, or, If we object to a fixed cut-off score, at least make these scores a matter of public record.

Right-wing authoritarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Social dominance orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or better yet, only card carrying Libertarian Party members should be allowed to be judges!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

By specifying deeply religious folks I paint with an appropriately narrow brush. Moderately religious people would be expected to function in a more balanced fashion.

And what of deeply religious folks for whom honesty/integrity is a core religious principle?

You're incoherently wallowing in bias.​

 

[Uberpod]

And what of deeply religious folks for whom honesty/integrity is a core religious principle?

You're incoherently wallowing in bias.​

Being deeply religious precludes intellectual integrity.

 

[outhouse]

there was a miscarriage of justice.

Was there?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Being deeply religious precludes intellectual integrity.

And here we have it: unbridled bigotry. No surprise here ...

 

[Uberpod]

DEEPLY RELIGIOUS absolute conviction to a set of definitive beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe as created of a superhuman agency.

 

[Riverwolf]

Not exactly. The capacity to be rational is a human element.

Humans as a species are emotional first, and rational second.

But- yes- computer analyzed probability calculations, etc would be beneficial. Eye witness testimony should be appropriately de-emphasized.

On the other hand, it's not exactly something I'd trust. Without that trust, there can be no real justice. I'll trust fallacious humans over uncaring machines.

 

[Valjean]

Or better yet, only card carrying Libertarian Party members should be allowed to be judges!

You've got cards, now...?