| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Fruit of the Poison Tree, Tarts From the Poison Fruit |
| 2009-12-04 |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #4 How about the Y2K problem? [Guy snaps his figers in Times Square] Whaddaya doin'? Keepin' the alligators away. There aren't any alligators around here! Works pretty good, don't it! |
| Posted by: Bobby 2009-12-04 18:40 |
| #3 “The emphasis is on preventing events that are highly improbable in the first place. So, governments tax their citizens billions to prevent something that is unlikely to occur. And when, imagine that, this improbable event doesn’t occur, it’s proof that the economy wrecking policy is working.” Politicians also love the “speculated probabilty/risk” system of persuasion for it’s convienient escape valve. After this type of scheme is inacted, should there be proof that the policy is failing the excuse template follows a predictable path. The first step is to create a diversion. Find a strawman and stick with him. The second step is to imply universal ignorance. Even the critics of a policy are included when it’s implied that no one could have possibly predicted the short commings. And finally, announce that the original policy may have worked had it just been allowed to fully develop. The intent of this blame shifting system is to allow for the continuation of the same policy in a differnet vehicle. There are pleanty of examples of how the speculated probabilty/risk scheme works in practice. For instance, how about the policies adopted to address the US economic situation? Now that there’s serious doubts about the “Stimulus Package”… meet the son of Stimulus…The Jobs Creation Package. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2009-12-04 12:39 |
| #2 "There’s a legal concept known as “fruit of the poison tree”. Basically, it states that any evidence or conclusions derived from improper or illegal techniques are inadmissible in court". A bit off topic, but this "concept" has always bugged me. This is not a law; this is some judge getting PO'd at the cops for illegal search, so to punish the cops, he lets the guilty perp go. Then it became precedent and enshrined in case law. Wrong on any number of points: The cops aren't punished, the public is. The judge conflates two separate crimes - just because the cop breaks a law doesn't mean the accused should get a free pass. Use the evidence against the perp and charge the cop with whatever crime he committed. Under this concept, if a cop was sure that Joe Blow was a serial killer and had a victim in his basement and he broke in and rescued the victim, the serial killer couldn't be charged because the evidence was obtained illegally. Past time to focus on finding the truth as opposed to treading an ever more complex maze of case law hoops. |
| Posted by: Mercutio 2009-12-04 11:56 |
| #1 Everything seems to be blocked by the empoyer's content filter. Not the 'Burg, yet. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2009-12-04 06:08 |