bborg

Criminal Justice

107 posts in this topic

After rereading my post from above I would like to clarify my statments so that there is no misunderstanding. When I wrote about fear being useful/wonderful I did not mean physical fear as in beating someone up. I meant the fear to be like the curtain being pulled away such as was done in the movie The Wizard of Oz. The fear on the wizards face is a perfect example of the petty tyrant or power seeker being found to be a fake.

Fair enough, but I find it difficult to care how people like that feel. Also, I really don't like to talk to evil people.

I think I will just focus on answering the questions I'm asked, and rather than go out of my way to expose the dishonesty of this author I will just try to correct misunderstandings as they come up in discussion (if they do). I really hate that the university is using such an awful book to represent philosophy, but at the same time I need to keep my eyes on the prize. Maybe after the course I will write to my professor, who I have some rapport with from a previous class, about my concerns. If he's receptive, he might forward my complaint to the appropriate people. Who knows, maybe they'll find a different text for later students.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After rereading my post from above I would like to clarify my statments so that there is no misunderstanding. When I wrote about fear being useful/wonderful I did not mean physical fear as in beating someone up. I meant the fear to be like the curtain being pulled away such as was done in the movie The Wizard of Oz. The fear on the wizards face is a perfect example of the petty tyrant or power seeker being found to be a fake.

Fair enough, but I find it difficult to care how people like that feel. Also, I really don't like to talk to evil people.

I think I will just focus on answering the questions I'm asked, and rather than go out of my way to expose the dishonesty of this author I will just try to correct misunderstandings as they come up in discussion (if they do). I really hate that the university is using such an awful book to represent philosophy, but at the same time I need to keep my eyes on the prize. Maybe after the course I will write to my professor, who I have some rapport with from a previous class, about my concerns. If he's receptive, he might forward my complaint to the appropriate people. Who knows, maybe they'll find a different text for later students.

In the time it took for you to write up your critique of the authors of the text you could have written them a letter. Telling most of us here on THE FORUM about the dismal authors is preaching to the choir. Letting evil know that you know they are evil is not losing one's focus, it is a step in taking back lost ground. I do not like evil people either, but you are not going to win a war without facing them. And unless you are going to use force, the only other alternative is through some form of discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the time it took for you to write up your critique of the authors of the text you could have written them a letter. Telling most of us here on THE FORUM about the dismal authors is preaching to the choir. Letting evil know that you know they are evil is not losing one's focus, it is a step in taking back lost ground. I do not like evil people either, but you are not going to win a war without facing them. And unless you are going to use force, the only other alternative is through some form of discussion.

Evil people don't matter because they produce nothing, and I can't "convert" them because they've already evaded the facts they needed to correct their errors. This guy had Ayn Rand's works in his hands and rejected it because it failed his "common sense check". Whether or not my writing him makes him "afraid", he's not going to retract his words.

The people I'm worried about are the students being indoctrinated by this stuff. I answered a discussion question last night about applying teleological and deontological theories and included a criticism of how the ideas were presented in the book. Hopefully my contribution will be received respectfully. I don't want to start off by appearing to accept the premises of my enemies.

Incidentally, if posting news here of personal experiences is "preaching to the choir", then what is this Forum for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not saying not to post here but we are not the one's that need to be beaten. If you are going to attempt to change the culture you live then Ayn Rand's ideas are a wonderful tool, the greatest tool. But, along with those ideas a person is still going to need to take action against one's enemies. I do not think anyone here on THE FORUM enjoys wasting one minute of their time on evil people. But, if action is not taken outside of this forum we are going to lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not saying not to post here but we are not the one's that need to be beaten. If you are going to attempt to change the culture you live then Ayn Rand's ideas are a wonderful tool, the greatest tool. But, along with those ideas a person is still going to need to take action against one's enemies. I do not think anyone here on THE FORUM enjoys wasting one minute of their time on evil people. But, if action is not taken outside of this forum we are going to lose.

There is nothing I could say to this author that would change the culture. I prefer to focus efforts on people with independent minds. That is taking action against my enemies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is nothing I could say to this author that would change the culture. I prefer to focus efforts on people with independent minds.

Good idea. One of those people might be the publisher of the book but, rather than you doing it, I suggest you tell ARI about it and let them handle it.

As a large organization speaking for Ayn Rand (and working with the Estate of Ayn Rand), they can be extremely effective. When the publisher knows that the legal representatives af Ayn Rand are unhappy about the way her ideas have been misrepresented and "held up to public ridicule," it is more likely to lead to positive changes in the next edition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a large organization speaking for Ayn Rand (and working with the Estate of Ayn Rand), they can be extremely effective. When the publisher knows that the legal representatives af Ayn Rand are unhappy about the way her ideas have been misrepresented and "held up to public ridicule," it is more likely to lead to positive changes in the next edition.

I sympathise with that approach, but isn't it legally impossible to slander/libel the dead? I'd think the only leverage would be that people at ARI would be presumed to know a lot about the ideas and could only appeal to whatever integrity the publisher possesses, to correct misrepresentations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is nothing I could say to this author that would change the culture. I prefer to focus efforts on people with independent minds. That is taking action against my enemies.

I think most, if not all, people on this forum would prefer to focus on independently minded people. But, those type of people are not the ones that you are most likely going to do battle with. I also never said that you were going to be able change the author's thoughts. I wrote and meant that writing the authors is an option you could take to let them know that you are here and working to take back what is rightfully yours. What ever route you choose to pursue I send my best regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a large organization speaking for Ayn Rand (and working with the Estate of Ayn Rand), they can be extremely effective. When the publisher knows that the legal representatives of Ayn Rand are unhappy about the way her ideas have been misrepresented and "held up to public ridicule," it is more likely to lead to positive changes in the next edition.

I sympathize with that approach, but isn't it legally impossible to slander/libel the dead?

The Estate is an existing entity with assets the value of which could be diminished by misrepresentation. Even if a suit has no merit, it could be brought and would have to be defended -- something that the publisher could avoid by making some simple editorial changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bborg,

This sounds like a fascinating direction to take.

It is, and for some reason it was not an option I even considered until recently. When I saw the ad, something about the career "clicked". It's not that all of a sudden I had an appreciation for it, because I've always admired detectives and investigators. I guess it just hit me that I can do that! I began in philosophy and I never really wanted to consider making a big departure from that field. However if I do decide to do this, it's not like I will be leaving philosophy behind. I think it would give me a unique and fuller perspective of the work. Also getting a degree in philosophy, alongside my study of Objectivism, has honed my reasoning skills which are essential to investigative work. I won't know for sure until I dive in, but I think this is something I might be really good at.

I suppose a focus on the scum of the earth comes with the job, but the idea that I might catch them and help to put them in jail I think would be extremely rewarding.

You might have a look at Reichs' books, since she's the real thing, a forensic anthropologist, and covers all of the tools at the disposal of investigators and the work of the investigators themselves.

It's certainly a wide-open field with lots of room for interesting specialization, including electronic security and digital forensics, which will also be growing in the coming years.

I will definitely check out the books, thanks for the recommendation. :wacko: And you raise a cool point, that technology is making real strides in this area. It means I'd get to work with all sorts of gadgets. ;)

In the time it took for you to write up your critique of the authors of the text you could have written them a letter. Telling most of us here on THE FORUM about the dismal authors is preaching to the choir. Letting evil know that you know they are evil is not losing one's focus, it is a step in taking back lost ground. I do not like evil people either, but you are not going to win a war without facing them. And unless you are going to use force, the only other alternative is through some form of discussion.

Evil people don't matter because they produce nothing, and I can't "convert" them because they've already evaded the facts they needed to correct their errors. This guy had Ayn Rand's works in his hands and rejected it because it failed his "common sense check". Whether or not my writing him makes him "afraid", he's not going to retract his words.

The people I'm worried about are the students being indoctrinated by this stuff. I answered a discussion question last night about applying teleological and deontological theories and included a criticism of how the ideas were presented in the book. Hopefully my contribution will be received respectfully. I don't want to start off by appearing to accept the premises of my enemies.

Incidentally, if posting news here of personal experiences is "preaching to the choir", then what is this Forum for?

Bryson, please take this post in the most beneficial way as that is how it is meant.

If, as you have written, "evil people don't matter", why have you chosen to go into the Criminal Justice field which by the very nature of the field you will be spending a lot of time with and "focusing" on evil people?

I also disagree with your statements about converting people. Most will not change, but I have seen and read about many criminals changing their thoughts and their way of life. It is not an easy chore and most will probably not even attempt it, but it can be achieved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bryson, please take this post in the most beneficial way as that is how it is meant.

If, as you have written, "evil people don't matter", why have you chosen to go into the Criminal Justice field which by the very nature of the field you will be spending a lot of time with and "focusing" on evil people?

Because the people they harm do matter, and they need protection.

I also disagree with your statements about converting people. Most will not change, but I have seen and read about many criminals changing their thoughts and their way of life. It is not an easy chore and most will probably not even attempt it, but it can be achieved.

Well, others are free to try to reach them. I don't plan to bother. Also, note we were not talking about a criminal, and there isn't even an audience that would benefit from my writing a letter to this person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bryson, please take this post in the most beneficial way as that is how it is meant.

If, as you have written, "evil people don't matter", why have you chosen to go into the Criminal Justice field which by the very nature of the field you will be spending a lot of time with and "focusing" on evil people?

Because the people they harm do matter, and they need protection.

I also disagree with your statements about converting people. Most will not change, but I have seen and read about many criminals changing their thoughts and their way of life. It is not an easy chore and most will probably not even attempt it, but it can be achieved.

Well, others are free to try to reach them. I don't plan to bother. Also, note we were not talking about a criminal, and there isn't even an audience that would benefit from my writing a letter to this person.

I agree, that injustices should be righted and that Criminal Justice is a moral profession. But, you are going to have to spend a lot of time focusing on the actions of evil people, and how are you going to handle that?

The person that would benefit from you writing the letter is you, by knowing you have righted the injustice against the innocent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, that injustices should be righted and that Criminal Justice is a moral profession. But, you are going to have to spend a lot of time focusing on the actions of evil people, and how are you going to handle that?

I don't see what this has to do with what I said, which was about spreading good ideas.

The person that would benefit from you writing the letter is you, by knowing you have righted the injustice against the innocent.

How would writing a letter to the author do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, that injustices should be righted and that Criminal Justice is a moral profession. But, you are going to have to spend a lot of time focusing on the actions of evil people, and how are you going to handle that?

I don't see what this has to do with what I said, which was about spreading good ideas.

The person that would benefit from you writing the letter is you, by knowing you have righted the injustice against the innocent.

How would writing a letter to the author do that?

You are the one that stated you want to focus only on the good and that evil people do not matter. But, you are attempting to go into a field that requires you spend a large amount of time focused on some of the most corrupt/evil people in society. You also stated that you do not plan to bother attempting to change the evil people of society. So If you are going to get into the criminal field and have no desire to change the evil people you arrest or help to arrest than you have to have another motivating factor that will drive you? Justice for the innocent/good, or your own values and virtues, these might be reasons. Writing a letter can have a similar type of effect that you might have with bringing the evil murderer to justice. In other words, you are not looking to change the criminal (which can be done), you might be looking to bring justice to those that were wronged. Who cares if the author changes his mind or critique, you have found them guilty of fraud and are letting them know that you have passed judgement. Passing judgement is an act of justice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are the one that stated you want to focus only on the good and that evil people do not matter. But, you are attempting to go into a field that requires you spend a large amount of time focused on some of the most corrupt/evil people in society. You also stated that you do not plan to bother attempting to change the evil people of society. So If you are going to get into the criminal field and have no desire to change the evil people you arrest or help to arrest than you have to have another motivating factor that will drive you? Justice for the innocent/good, or your own values and virtues, these might be reasons. Writing a letter can have a similar type of effect that you might have with bringing the evil murderer to justice. In other words, you are not looking to change the criminal (which can be done), you might be looking to bring justice to those that were wronged. Who cares if the author changes his mind or critique, you have found them guilty of fraud and are letting them know that you have passed judgement. Passing judgement is an act of justice

I've already talked about my motivation, and your comments here still don't change the fact that writing a letter to the author accomplishes absolutely nothing. I have no obligation to waste one minute of my life writing to evil people, and that's that.

I think Betsy's idea was a great one, though, and might actually lead to a positive change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are the one that stated you want to focus only on the good and that evil people do not matter. But, you are attempting to go into a field that requires you spend a large amount of time focused on some of the most corrupt/evil people in society. You also stated that you do not plan to bother attempting to change the evil people of society. So If you are going to get into the criminal field and have no desire to change the evil people you arrest or help to arrest than you have to have another motivating factor that will drive you? Justice for the innocent/good, or your own values and virtues, these might be reasons. Writing a letter can have a similar type of effect that you might have with bringing the evil murderer to justice. In other words, you are not looking to change the criminal (which can be done), you might be looking to bring justice to those that were wronged. Who cares if the author changes his mind or critique, you have found them guilty of fraud and are letting them know that you have passed judgement. Passing judgement is an act of justice

I've already talked about my motivation, and your comments here still don't change the fact that writing a letter to the author accomplishes absolutely nothing. I have no obligation to waste one minute of my life writing to evil people, and that's that.

I think Betsy's idea was a great one, though, and might actually lead to a positive change.

You are not wasting your time on the evil, you are bringing justice to those that deserve it. And to bring justice to the good/innocent you will have to face the evil and spend time conquering them. How do you expect to win a war without facing your enemies? No need to answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are not wasting your time on the evil, you are bringing justice to those that deserve it. And to bring justice to the good/innocent you will have to face the evil and spend time conquering them. How do you expect to win a war without facing your enemies?

Why waste time doing battle with a minor foot soldier (the author) when, by recruiting a top general (ARI), you can win the war (getting the publisher to change the book).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that you need any more solutions to the problem of what to do with the textbok you are critical of, but I wanted to relay my experiences in a similar vein.

When I was working toward my Engineering degree I retook a Physics course to cover ground I wasn't comfortable with, and was appalled at the quality of the textbook I was studying from. While technically sound (how do you mess up an equation?) there were an overwhelming number of "example problems" and sidebar editorializing dealing with viro rhetoric. In a physics textbook! I was so upset that I approached both my professor and through him the University itself. I had kept a laundry list at my elbow of everything that bothered me about the book, and it was this list and a short reasoned reply of my own that I presented to them (I had to present it twice). They listened, but I never heard a word of what came of it, until about a month had passed. I had spent the meantime using the textbook to the best of my capabilities and joking with the other students about how we were lucky we were learning anything at all.

When I was almost finished with the class, the professor announced that they would be changing the textbook for the next time. For the better? For the worse? I couldn't tell you. That's a matter for future physics students and their professors.

BTW, bborg, I appreciate you tuning everyone into this career change you're trying. I've enjoyed reading (most of) this thread and think you are doing something pretty cool. It is fun to think of all the different careers you might enjoy and be good at, but I'm betting it is a lot funner to be giving it a real try. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If you like condensations (provided you bear in mind their full meaning), I will say: when you ask "What can one do?"--the answer is "SPEAK" (provided you know what you are saying).

A few suggestions: do not wait for a national audience. Speak on any scale open to you, large or small--to your friends, your associates, your professional organizations, or any legitimate public forum. You can never tell when your words will reach the right mind at the right time. You will see no immediate results--but it is of such activities that public opinion is made.

Do not pass up a chance to express your views on impotant issues. Write letters to the editors of newspapers and magazines, to TV and radio commentators and, above all, to your Congressman (who depend on their constituents). If your letters are brief and rational (rather than incoherently emotional), they will have more influence than you suspect.

The opportunities to speak are all around you. I suggest that you make the following experiment: take an ideological "inventory" of one week, i.e., note how many times people utter the wrong political, social and moral notions as if these were self-evident truths, with your silent sanction. Then make it a habit to object to such remarks--no, not to make lengthy speeches, which are seldom appropriate, but merely to say: "I don't agree." (And be prepared to explain why, if the speaker wants to know.) This is one of the best ways to stop the spread of vicious bromides. (If the speaker is innocent, it will help him; if he is not, it will undercut his confidence the next time.) Most particulary, do not keep silent when your own ideas and values are being attacked."

[Ayn Rand, "What Can One Do?," Philosophy: Who Needs It, 202]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bborg, I would like to add that I do not mean to imply that you or others have some type of duty to write these people or anything like that. I just wanted to show that it is moral if someone chooses to do so and not a waste of their time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not that you need any more solutions to the problem of what to do with the textbok you are critical of, but I wanted to relay my experiences in a similar vein.

Good work! I hope they replaced the book with something better, although I can't imagine they would have replaced it with worse.

I made comments in the previous class about our texts, and the professor seemed understanding. She didn't seem the type to do anything about it, though. The authors took certain ideas for granted - such as that crime is caused by poverty and social inequalities. While they claimed to be dispelling crime myths with facts, they never did attempt to justify their own premises (what a surprise).

BTW, bborg, I appreciate you tuning everyone into this career change you're trying. I've enjoyed reading (most of) this thread and think you are doing something pretty cool. It is fun to think of all the different careers you might enjoy and be good at, but I'm betting it is a lot funner to be giving it a real try. :wacko:

Thanks! It's a big deal for me, so I enjoy sharing. I hope the opportunities will be as exciting and rewarding as I've imagined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[i made comments in the previous class about our texts, and the professor seemed understanding. She didn't seem the type to do anything about it, though. The authors took certain ideas for granted - such as that crime is caused by poverty and social inequalities. While they claimed to be dispelling crime myths with facts, they never did attempt to justify their own premises (what a surprise).

If you haven't read "Inside The Criminal Mind" by George Samenow, I cannot too strongly recommend you do so. He puts forward the case that people are criminals because of the way they think, not because of the external factors mentioned above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Along these lines, my wife recently took a position with the DOC in Alaska, and one of the books she was issued to study was "Games that Criminals Play."

She was terribly disappointed to find out that it was a psychological textbook and not instructions for "the shell game" and "3-card monte." :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[i made comments in the previous class about our texts, and the professor seemed understanding. She didn't seem the type to do anything about it, though. The authors took certain ideas for granted - such as that crime is caused by poverty and social inequalities. While they claimed to be dispelling crime myths with facts, they never did attempt to justify their own premises (what a surprise).

If you haven't read "Inside The Criminal Mind" by George Samenow, I cannot too strongly recommend you do so. He puts forward the case that people are criminals because of the way they think, not because of the external factors mentioned above.

I agree with you Arnold, except the authors name is Stanton Samenow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you haven't read "Inside The Criminal Mind" by [stanton] Samenow, I cannot too strongly recommend you do so. He puts forward the case that people are criminals because of the way they think, not because of the external factors mentioned above.

I'm putting this on my reading list immediately. I caught myself _just_last night as I reading a review of a movie about a teacher pursuing a relationship with a student, thinking, "Well no wonder it's happening, the movies portray it in a positive light." Thankfully the rational side of my brain screamed, "Wait just a cottonpickin' minute missy."

It's embarrassing to admit this error, but maybe if I do so, it shan't happen again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites