poli-sci (06/28/82)
>From JoSH@RUTGERS Sun Jun 27 21:29:59 1982
Poli-Sci Digest Mon 28 Jun 82 Volume 2 Number 149
Contents: The Sounds of Silence (2 msgs)
Social Experiments
Insanity Plea
Civil Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 25 June 1982 2247-EDT (Friday)
From: Hank Walker at CMU-10A
Subject: silence
I was taught in business classes that "silence means consent". It doesn't
matter whether this is really true, it only matters that people believe it.
It might mean that you don't care enough to get involved, which is
essentially the same as consent in politics or watching a mugging. If someone
is doing something objectionable, and you say nothing, they'll assume that
it's okay to do it. This is as true for little kids as adults.
------------------------------
Date: 27 Jun 1982 1714-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Re: J C Pistritto's comments on Gary Feldman's comments on conservatives & racism (getting long enough?)
On this issue, if you aren't part of the solution, you're part
of the problem.
This is a statement of a fanatic; this is the reasoning used to
justify the killing and maiming of children in acts of political
terror; this is the reasoning of certain ignorant hawks who believe
that only capitalism (the US) and communism (the USSR) exist in the
world. This is, in short, such an EVIL statement that I cannot see
anyone taking it seriously except for those poor, and dangerous, mad
dogs who continue to make life dangerous and unhappy for us all.
(as you can tell, I am a bit upset about this!)
Enough said.
Perhaps more to the point is simply that a large segment of the
conservative community strongly believes that the government should
interfere as little as possible in the affairs of individuals (some
conservatives feel otherwise, but I cannot fairly speak for them).
They also feel that government action, when called for, should be
carried out at the lowest level of government possible. Finally, that
power should NEVER be concentrated in any organ of the government if
you can possibly find an alternate way of solving a problem.
Quite frankly, many conservatives distrust government on principle and
would like to see it's activities confined to areas where individual
action is very difficult (such as national defense). This belief has
ample historical justification - the greatest danger to liberty is the
government, not the people.
Frankly, I cannot understand the reasoning of many who hate
conservatives. THEY support individual libertities in the most
effective manner possible - by decentralizing power whenever possible
throughout the government, industry, and society. Many radicals, who
profess to love human rights so much, continue to argue that more and
more power should be CONCENTRATED in the government (particularly the
national government) to deal with the "evils" of society. They attack
connections between industrialists and politicians, desiring to place
industry under greater political control - which would only INCREASE
the strength of those connections, not decrease them. They simply do
not seem to understand that any "evil" has a reason for existing, and
that INTELLIGENT action (which is very difficult, and often
impossible) is the only way to stop them. The recent (past
generation) meatax approach to solving problems has done some good,
but a lot more harm. If this goes on, I fully expect a practical
dictatorship in this country by the turn of the century. And,
ironically, it will be the ACLU and the doves who drove us to it.
Jim
[A thought: Which of the two above opinions on the "silence"
issue am I agreeing with by not saying anything about it?
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 25 Jun 82 23:58:24-EDT (Fri)
From: J C Pistritto <jcp@BRL>
Subject: Social Experiments
Social experiments exist today, for instance, the Israeli Kibbutz movement.
While the kibbutz is an almost totally socialist experiment, and seems to
work well, like all small-scale experiments, the results, (almost entirely
successful), do not guarantee the same thing on a larger scale, or even
on a similar scale in different conditions, (Soviet collective farms, for
instance).
-JCP-
------------------------------
Date: 26 June 1982 01:48-EDT
From: James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Insanity Plea
The issues of guilt and punishment already are reasonably
well-separated. In most criminal cases, the jury determines the guilt
and the judge then sets punishment, using his own judgment when the
law does not prescribe punishment exactly.
The problem is that insanity is considered to be important to guilt or
innocence. A person is guilty only if he knew what he was doing and
he had the mental presence at the time to understand the difference
between right and wrong. What you want is to change the legal
definition of "guilt" to simply "committed the alleged actions." Laws
would then have to be made much more flexible, allowing the judge or
jury to consider, when fixing punishment, things which are considered
now in the determination of guilt. So you see, things are not so
simple.
Actually, I don't believe that the problem is that severe. Alan
Dershowitz (sp?), a professor at Harvard Law School, notes that the
insanity defense is rarely attempted, and even more rarely succeeds.
The insanity plea is generally only tried in especially heinous
crimes, and by using it the defense virtually admits that the
defendant committed the crime, and most juries tend to put people away
who commit heinous crimes, whether they are insane or not. Sometimes
though, as in the case of John Hinkley, the insanity plea succeeds
spectacularly, and this brings an outcry for reform. But reforms
should be based on a study of the whole issue, and not on one case.
------------------------------
Date: 26 June 1982 1626-EDT (Saturday)
From: Gary Feldman at CMU-10A
Subject: civil rights
1. The tactic of collecting other peoples quotes with a minimum of commentary
is intended not to establish my own point, but to let people know where I
am coming from, and to get them to think. I don't believe anyone has to
apologize for missing my intention. I do think that when confronted
with such a message, people should refrain from guessing at what I
am trying to say, and instead limit themselves to what the quotations say.
2. Cox makes the claim that Kilpatrick's views only appear to be limited,
because the scope of the aritcle is (quite justifiably) limited. This would
be a valid point IF I could find other articles by Kilpatrick (or another
member of the conservative camp) that filled the void. I will leave that
task to others.
3. No, I am not surprised that conservatives failed to support liberal
solutions to civil rights problems. However, I am skeptical of the
notion that conservatives were so busy fighting the liberal solutions that
they could not come up with their own. My reason: I sincerely believe
that if conservatives had given strong support to their own solutions (for
example, strong enforcement of the provision for limited Congressional
representation), then those solutions would have passed with far less
difficulty than the Civil Rights Act.
Gary
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------