[ExI] Perjury

[spike at rainier66.com]

From: extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 6:55 PM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Perjury

 

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 3:32 PM <spike at rainier66.com <mailto:spike at rainier66.com> > wrote:

 >>…The topic is OK if we have some kind of take on it that might be of interest to ExI, such as a legal innovation we are witnessing: having what amounts to a job interview influenced by a criminal accusation. 

 

>…Well shouldn't a job interview be influenced by a criminal accusation? 

 

Not unless it is proven.  Otherwise an uncorroborated accusation becomes a weapon.  Those can be manufactured at no cost and no risk.  Do we want weapons that can be created in arbitrary quantities?  

 

This one is used on your adversary… this time.  Do you know who it will be used against later?  If you had a pristine childhood and youth, that is no protection at all if an accusation suffices as proof of guilt.

 

>…lifetime job in which he will be judging us for perhaps the next 40 years… John K Clark   

 

A SCOTUS justice does not judge us, she judges congress.  The closer she stays to the constitution, the better.

 

Any criminal accusation must be proven in a criminal court, rather than hurled at a job interviewer.  Of course if the current subject is confirmed, that option is still open.  If convicted then he would be impeached.  If not convicted, the accusation is irrelevant.  Arbitrarily many unproven accusations are irrelevant.  That is how we define the concept of presumption of innocence.  Without that presumption, we are back where we were in 1693.

 

spike

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20181003/940f559c/attachment.html>