/* Working Papers of Patrick Lee Cheatham - under Content Development */
// Note to Self: // For: uncombine multiple former essays, and sort arrange into better bins // With: existing bins and newly created bins
United States state legal code making have for several decades grown increasingly inclusive of “crackdown” mentality polices upon the legally accused or apprehended, in a philosophy of crime prevention by way of draconian sentences, usually put forth as a reasonable way to deter crime before it occurs.
This deterrent attitude aims to get months, years, and decades ahead of crime actually manifesting, and the technique is to aim for the impossible fantasy goal: to prevent all future feasible crime. Not only is this impossible, but much worse it is very damaging to human rights to thus attempt to clean up demographics or stamp out infraction percentages in an authoritarian dystopian multi-year plan to supposedly improve city living conditions with cleaner streets, but much to the costs of infringements on personal liberty for us all.
This philosophy amounts to an unwise and unconstitutional preemptive, preventative, and prohibitionist style of lawmaking, which as couched and stated in proposals would likely read much prettier and not nearly as sinister as truly is. In contrast Crime Stoppers philosophy is to only apply an ounce of prevention, and allow the remainder of the pound to be held in reserve until an actual crime scene has manifested, reacting to crime, rather than attempting to reduce it ahead of time, by way of unethical social engineering and preemptive rehabilitation techniques. In the United States Constitutional based justice system, the philosophy is to not make legal maneuver crimes against the entire populace in a Orwellian attempt to improve society, and instead the philosophy is to place the rights of way of the apprehended, arrested, and/or accused as priority.
Recent Societal Histories Scenerios
A relevant case is the contemporary 2018 situations of state legal codes having been enacted in an attempt to statistically stamp out Driving Under the Influence (DUI), by way of highly exaggerated sentences for the infraction, with even the minimum sentences set to be huge in penalty, apparently to use lawmaking as a device to posture zero defect and zero tolerance attitudes. This violates the principle that minimum sentence, even if found guilty, should allow for zero or at least fairly low to moderate penalty. This approach, along with judging with solid respect for far more doubt than that of automatic and righteous judgment, such that the bar of degree of doubt (always present) stands reasonably exceeding estimated surety levels, on multiple goal fronts (for society benefit and for accused benefit) makes for a doubtful zone when multi-side-defence stands always as U. S. Constitutional priority. This better secures to the individual his or her own liberty as imbued, and defends it as always the prime blessing to have, rather than debasing partial takeover of personal liberties.
Penal Colonies and Penal Penitentiary Benefits, Notionally
These institutions do typically feature huge protective structural walls, to protect against raging hoards of local populace, if and when infrenzied against designated devilry-outlets. Legal personnel might very well have that in mind in the judging process, if an accused fails to be convicted and left to the ministrations of a very indoor-outdoor misalignment in our species spanning possibly more than 90 years.
Case in Multipoint
An acquaintanceship of mine, had a DUI on record from his years as a teenager. Over 30 years later, he had one more, and the minimum sentence was overblown greatly. MADD? Multigender Against Disobedient of the Driven? I do wonder what happens when a first offense happens by someone for whom the details of deterrence prompt no option to consider, if swerving might continue into subdivided city streets. This is not a police matter, this is a powerful element within the population, bent on burning down imagined-up fantasy-style future adversaries, which is to my view illegal. It is preemptive strike…
A reread of the previous sentence might prompt a logical epiphany.
Real-time Opportunity and Liberty – United States Dreams of Month Times
Liberty increase attempts by others only backfire.
Opportunity decrease by others is only sublimated to awareness.
Acclimation Transitory, Self-Behavior Personal Style Upgrades
Returning, the unfortunate contemporary emphasis on preventing crime rather than reacting to it, seems at least partially to be fueled to fire by a feeling I have noticed espoused by many U. S. citizens, which is a personal take on civic roles that a noble way of contributing is to want what is best for people. This philosophy gravipull stands as primarily a latency involving acclimation timespan adjustment phenomenon, and is no impediment, syndrome, complexity, nor simplexity.
Similarly, adjusting from the three compartment life of salaried employment, to the two compartment life of sole proprietorship, merely involved, for me, approximately six months of readjustment. Salaried personnel have the domicile, the automobile, and the jobplace as physical compartments. Duties were left behind elsewhere, is an advantage. Virtues of losing ones coworker virtual family in that families governing setting, on Friday evening, is a disadvantage. Sole proprietors and home based partnerships readjust to only two physical compartments. This is a gradual reacclimation process, and is standard fare. // Move to another Bin, new
Parents have purview (regular daily interaction to truly know status, rather than to know interiors of mind) until transition begins upon High School graduation age, regardless of one-logic oversimplification of categorizations of accurately and precisely when such enters transition toward the case, the case being after transition is in personal histories. (Online Browser software “browser history” differing from “search history” is an available contemporary case of: prose usage).
I imagine that nearly all parents have laudable behavior, at least in the attempt, in stewardship of those not financially self-supportable. Self “support” — pre-1990s usage era.
To my observations on human nature, ending one’s parenting career near the end of one’s vocational career can be planned against to avert a difficult impasse. For a career has teeth to prompt a mammal through mere minutes of self-motivation dearth, onward toward regain of self-motivation actualization. Volunteer work has no teeth financially, in contrast. Volunteer work also provides very little contribution to others in dynamic quick-time ebb and flow. Many service personnel are unfamiliar with jobplace environs whenby there is no one to contribute to, even with electronic contact, telephone contact, nor prose or code writing with a directly aware soon-audience of peer review or app store commentary (of which a very little can go a long way), other than a supervisor in a similar bind. Authoring software code is continually about the customer, which is a great boon. Not one second goes by without that in mind…
// One-logic blurs intrinsic complexity of detail in real-time factors // combining it into one operand notion // and also simultaneously models that notion // into an overly refined one crux, in associative operator cognition. // Behavioral Science and Psychology have done well with describing the rule of fives // which applies mostly to when not writing. // Alternatively, when all brain anatomy is co-linked in writing, // especially by engaging typing modes peripheral to mid-brain awareness // the rule of fives expands into ambient logical associative powers. // Otherwise, the rule comes down to Operand-Operator-Operand-Operator-Operand. // Operators can occur as conjunctions, // multi-word verb connectors, // conditional conditions applicable, // and caveat exception words, // such as "yet" preceding couching awareness-expanding... // related otherwise similar vein applicable factors.
/* Transfer Into Existing Bins/Essays */
/* Scavenge gems and toss the dross… */
I also believe this way of approaching activism and leverage upon lawmakers is very difficult to argue against, as what I view to be the faulty reasoning behind these stances, emphases, and approaches is sublimated and below the notice of those clamoring for stronger prevention, and below the notice of those making these lawmaking decisions. The beast hides in the presumed, unchallenged, defacto condoned, and unaddressed middle-aged U. S. upper-middle class automated ethical popular culture trends, reinforced by parenting attitudes.
A citizens’ virtual invalid parent, wanting what is best for other people, and thus taking dictatorial and despotic charge of other citizens’ lives, may not ethically own or proxy for other citizens, at least not without violating the U. S. Constitution itself. Caring so keenly over other citizens lives, as in recent decades has seemingly been done by constituencies and lawmakers in many states of the United States, is to take liberties with fellow citizens by way of policy making, and is to violate the 5 ongoing goals of the We The People constitution, with the nature of each verb wisely selected, and the order of the verbs aimed at the goals, both indicating that Establishment of Justice is the lowest priority, with citizens owning their imbued liberties, secured to himself or herself each, being the greatest priority.
Legal regard should thus always be piqued toward each accused citizen’s Rights of Way when assessing Human Rights of Way infringements, infractions, and penalization. This is an approach of penal rather than punis, or punishment. The maximum our Justice system should burden any citizen with is a penalty box approach to judgments. React to crime, rather than prevent it years in advance. Avert conflicts, difficulties, and transgressions only soon after they begin to manifest, rather than avoid conflicts, difficulties, and transgressions by way of pressuring lawmakers to crackdown and put other citizens away, in an effort to sterilize the roads and domestic zones.
The lure of goals such as making our republic secure and more secure, seems blind to whether that fist crushes personal liberties, and blind to whether it moves matters in the United States far too close to a Justice State for those who slip up with respect to State legal codes and land in situations of near human rights violations for their lack of proper “upstanding citizen” behavior, and otherwise a Panacea State of being sheltered under the gun, for the remainder of citizens fortunate to have no legal issues upon them, who then must live in a sterile rut of stifling over-security.