3 ms·
>I think the ability to solve a criminal act via the technique described is perfectly valid. This would be true if laws were divine instruments of justice rath
by StanislavPetrov 8y ago
>I think the ability to solve a criminal act via the technique described is perfectly valid.
This would be true if laws were divine instruments of justice rather than poorly crafted, poorly-thought out instruments of social control crafted by the wealthy and powerful to control the poor and powerless. For example, we as a society are far, far better off not having "perfect" law enforcement in regards to drug laws. Solving every drug crime and prosecuting every "transgressor" would result in tens or hundreds of millions more destroyed lives and families, with absolutely no positive benefits to society. There are very good reasons to ensure that the power wielded by agents of the state is finite and limited, even (or especially) if it means that many "crimes" are not solved.
- vikingcaffiene 8y agoWe are absolutely on the same page about the draconian nature of US drug laws. I think there can be a middle ground. The GTK being caught and brought to justice for instance. That is a concrete example of the good that can come out of this. A monster like that is an affront to society and he needed to be caught if only to show that there can be some justice in this world. Someone posted a comment above mentioning Annie Dookhan which is an example of how wrong this can go. I think any rational person would be terrified of something like that happening to them. I certainly am. I don't think a blanket ban is the answer however. That would result in many egregious injustices to go unpunished as well. Any application needs to have a robust set of checks and balances in place. That really goes for any law enforcement investigative action though. No matter what we do there will be issues. I don't there is anything to gain on either end by trying to make this a zero sum game.