I was raised to believe that you should always follow the rules and the law. And I always tended to believe that. But as I got older I learned that wasn't always the case. There were things like passive resistance and political protest. Some laws could only be overturned if you challenged them, really. And some laws are just rarely enforced, or enforced differently from how they were written. But you should always try first to obey the rules. Of course the only exception to that rule would be Nazi Germany. In Nazi Germany obviously, everyone should have resisted arrest, defied authority, ignored every law. And then finally the prisoners should have burned down those concentration camps, possibly with all the guards still in them. But that is the only example I can think of that. But I sometimes wonder if there are any others.
The point of the example of "God save the king" at the end as you read the Riot Act, is that that is what the law said. The official must have read the whole act. Or the people assembled all go free. It doesn't matter if the official was scared and ducking for cover at that point. Fear or danger doesn't limit anyone's rights. In the US you have the right to face your accuser in open court for example. Sometimes they fear for their safety testifying on the witness stand. And sometimes it's humiliating too. Now rape shield laws restrict the use of a victim's sexual history as evidence in a sexual assault case to protect the victim from harassment and humiliation. And that's a good idea. But the evidence must be allowed if it's necessary to avoid violating the defendant's constitutional rights. Also, judges have said in the past that young victims can testify via closed-circuit TV if necessary. But original intent judges have said no. The Constitution says you have the right to face your accuser in open court. For many reasons, including so the jury can see your facial expressions and mannerisms to determine if you are lying. A person's freedom may be on the line if they don't. And, that is actually the one thing that I tend to agree with original intent judges on. Also, plea bargains make it possible to avoid victims testifying. That is one of the many benefits of plea bargains. And the prosecution can reject plea deal if he wants. So defendants should always be allowed to have that option, plea bargains.
His preconventional and conventional moral stages still guide things like our justice system. If a man steals bread to feed his starving family, the jury might still use jury nullification to find him not guilty if they think he should have never been charged.
Hmm. Been reading up. You know, many Trump supporters (esp. Jan. 6th) have the least education and lowest IQ's. And they are all mired in what Lawrence Kohlberg called the early conventional and pre-conventional stage of moral development. Now low IQ and lack of education can do that. So can lead poisoning.
I was also going to say, I was thinking a lot about some of the questions brought up by Kohlberg's six stages of moral development. About 30 years ago when I started thinking about this topic. (I was always interested in the topic of things like justice and human rights. And I discovered UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights at my college book store in 1988.) I think we all use every one of his six stages in life, and so do most societies. (I don't think many people use only the first stage, avoiding pain. Maybe just sociopaths and humans as infants, before they can even talk.) But some of use each stage to guide our beliefs and actions in more than one way. And sometimes what we believe in theory, we would never want used in practice. Like a classic example would be if a starving man steals bread. What should be done? Most people would say just leave him alone. But if the question gets more legal, most people would agree that should still always be illegal. But once he is arrested, he should not be charged. Or maybe just let off a warning. Or maybe even not arrested at all. Only a true anarchist would say stealing should be legal if you are poor or starving. Also something interesting I was thinking about again some time back, is the legal concept of time served. That some things are illegal, but have no penalty associated with them. Not even a fine. If some man keeps stealing bread and he's making a nuisance of himself, you could finally arrest him. But once he gets to court, or even the police station, they could just tell him. There's no fine or jail time for this crime. You're free to go. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is interesting, because it introduced me to the idea there are also basic economic rights that everyone is entitled to. The right to an 8-hour work day, the right to rest and leisure, the right to medical care. And I recently found out the UDHR wasn't the first to list these. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was written was written in France in 1793, but it was never put into legal effect. It included the right to public relief and to receive assistance if you are unable to work, and also things like the right to an education. The original French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 didn't include any of these. But the rights of man and of the citizen is still law and part of the French constitution. And it says things like laws are only to protect society from harm and ensure other people's rights are respected. I read the Rights of Man and of the Citizen for the first time in 1988 too.
The best example I can give regarding breaking rules for the right reasons, was what happened when the UK declared war on Germany in 1939. Some of what I am about to reveal is part covered by the official secrets act. As per the Geneva convention, German citizens were given 21 days to leave, or face being imprisoned. We had a problem, because only a few of them left, so building prison camps was hardly what we needed while preparing to fight a war. Not to mention having to guard and feed the prisoners. Winston Churchill immediately asked why they had stayed. The answer was obvious, they were Jews fleeing the Nazis, so our prison camps were certainly their best option. Churchill immediately realised the situation, so he decided instead of locking them up, they were interviewed and more than 95% of them were allowed to live freely. Conditions included reporting to the local police station daily, a night curfew, not allowed to travel more than a mile from their registered address, not meeting others, or going within 5 miles of a military establishment or factory, along with not communicating by letter. These people were mostly well educated and spoke fluent English, so a selection of them were put to teaching in our schools, since the war had left us short of teachers. Arriving at work, avoided the need to report to the police station. After the war ended, around half of them applied for full British citizenship and spent the rest of their lives in the UK.
Also, you know in 1994 Bill Clinton signed his famous three-strikes law. If you were convicted of three crimes (and only the first two had to be violent) you were sentenced to life in prison. Around that time I was reading an article from a British newspaper on that subject. They said first of all, in the UK prison was only used as a last option when all other options have failed. And also, it's usually a good idea to look into the causes of crime. Especially like when crime suddenly seems to be spiking in your country. Problems like drug use, mental illness and even child abuse when the offender was much younger. The 1994 three-strikes law cut down on most crimes. But like some people said at the time, at what price?
And I sometimes seem to support people like defense attorneys. Well, I think everyone should just do their job, and do their job well. I'm sorry if people have a problem with that. But actually there's another reason why a defense attorney should do his job well. If he does his job well and his client is acquitted, he can't be retried, under the doctrine of double jeopardy. But, if he does his job well and his client is found guilty, the effect is much the same. His client can always appeal the case. But he could never say that he deserves to have the verdict overturned because his attorney didn't his job well, and denied him his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. Because his lawyer did his job well. By the book even. That's what happened in 2007 in Michigan with Steven Grant. He killed his wife in a fit of rage and then sawed up her body in his garage in front of his children. And he basically got a life sentence with his court appointed attorney. But they said his court appoined attorney, though not really a fan of Steven Grant himself, was actually one of the better public defenders. He did the job well. So it was unlikely that Grant could appeal. Because like I said, everything was done by the book by his attorney.
Google AI Overview. Lawrence Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development and Theory Kohlberg's theory of moral development proposes six stages, grouped into three levels: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. These stages describe how individuals' reasoning about moral dilemmas evolves from being based on external consequences to being grounded in universal ethical principles. Here's a breakdown of each level and its stages: 1. Preconventional Morality: Stage 1: Punishment and Obedience Orientation: Individuals at this stage focus on avoiding punishment and obeying authority figures. They see morality as external to themselves, driven by the consequences of their actions. Stage 2: Individualism and Exchange: Individuals at this stage understand that different people have different perspectives and that there's a need to make deals and exchanges to get what they want. Morality is still based on personal gain and avoiding negative consequences, but with an understanding of reciprocity. 2. Conventional Morality: Stage 3: Interpersonal Accord and Conformity:. Individuals at this stage strive to gain approval and maintain positive relationships by conforming to social norms and expectations. They value loyalty, trust, and being a good member of the group. Stage 4: Authority and Social-Order Maintaining Orientation: Individuals at this stage understand that society is governed by rules and laws, and they respect authority and maintain social order. They believe that following the law and upholding social norms is morally right. 3. Postconventional Morality: Stage 5: Social Contract Orientation: Individuals at this stage recognize that laws and rules are social constructs that can be changed and that different societies may have different rules. They understand that rights and justice are important, and they may disobey laws that they believe are unjust. Stage 6: Universal Ethical Principles Orientation:. Individuals at this stage are guided by their own sense of universal ethical principles, such as justice, equality, and human rights. They are committed to upholding these principles, even if they conflict with laws or social norms. Dive deeper in AI Mode Generative AI is experimental.
Most Republicans never get past stage 3, unfortunately. Thats how they can be so blatantly immoral and so incredibly selfish and cruel.
