7d ago

3 Adams Case Prosecutors Resign Rather Than Express Regret to Justice Dept.

www.nytimes.com

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

27 comments

Also, why would you bring up something that I’ve already “admitted” in your parlance and tell it to me?
Because it's central to my own point, and context helps make things clear?
What counterpoint did I raise to this argument when it was raised before?
I saw nothing that I observed as a counter-point.
I guess sharing a view with you is “admitting” something, since this needs to be an adversarial interaction and your point of view is presumed to be the “right” one that you’re trying to bring me around to
No, as I said above, we are working on mutual communication, leading hopefully to us both learning more about the issue under discussion.
Since "admitted" doesn't work for you, what other word would you have me use? I'm trying to convey you knowing something, and saying that something, but not framing it in a way that communicates to me that you are thinking about it the same way I am, but are instead treating it as a minor point, or once detached from the immediate point, while I find it to be critical to the immediate point.
- What counterpoint did I raise to this argument when it was raised before?
  I saw nothing that I observed as a counter-point.
  Ah! We've reached the crux of the issue. You can search for the key word "blame" to observe, up above, you raising this exact point with a different analogy, and then me responding to it. See if that helps you find it. Let me know what you come up with.
  No, as I said above, we are working on mutual communication, leading hopefully to us both learning more about the issue under discussion.
  Honestly, I'm not trying to be rude about it, and I know I am a little bit, but it doesn't sound that way to me. It seems like I'm communicating, and you're repeating without paying much attention to what I'm saying except insofar as to try to detect things you can disagree with. That's not really mutual communication.
  Since “admitted” doesn’t work for you, what other word would you have me use?
  It's not actually the word choice. It's you taking some area where we agree, and treating it as an "admission" by me of something you're trying to prove to me, instead of, you know, just us seeing things the same way and then going forward from there.
  Stop repeating to me things I've already said to you as if they're going to be news to me. Stop treating it like when we agree, that's me "admitting" something, instead of just me believing it and agreeing with you. Stop treating this as a lecture where you're trying to get me to "admit" things. Just relax. Read what I wrote, try to understand it, and I'll do the same for your stuff.
  Go back and read what I already wrote, get some insight on what I think and why I think it. Once you can at least summarize back to me what my argument is, that's mutual communication. It seems like you're coming at this from a standpoint that I need to change my mind, you don't, and what I have to say about it is not "the critical point" and just repeating your critical points at me.
  
  Yes, I see your reply. It doesn't address my concern in any way.
  At risk of repeating back to you what you already know, your argument reads that the system is necessary, and I agree. Also, the system is unfair. I also agree. Also that people who knowingly use the unfair system to hurt people unfairly caught in the system are not responsible for the unfairness. I disagree.
  At this point, we should be trying to show each other why we believe what we believe. I, for example, would talk about how seal-clubbing is unfair, even if allowed by the rules. You might argue that anything allowed must be considered fair. (or you might argue something else, if I'm not properly understanding your position) We might learn from each other. We might not.
  
  At risk of repeating back to you what you already know, your argument reads that the system is necessary, and I agree. Also, the system is unfair. I also agree.
  Good so far.
  Also that people who knowingly use the unfair system to hurt people unfairly caught in the system are not responsible for the unfairness. I disagree.
  Nope! I actually completely agree with you on this. I touched on it a tiny bit up above, but to expand on it; Yes, absolutely, there are prosecutors who try at all costs to get a conviction even if they completely think the sentence is wildly harsh and punitive, or that the defendant is innocent or the law / system is wrong, or whatnot. Fuck those people. On that we actually 100% agree.
  There are clearly prosecutors on the other side of that. We’re talking under a post where some prosecutors were asked to pervert the course of justice and they said “Nope fuck that we quit.” Prosecutors drop charges all the time because it seems like the charges are unwarranted. Often these kind of “trying to set right the wrongful conviction” stories include modern day prosecutors arguing super-strongly in favor of the defendant that their office convicted years before. That cop who broke the elderly Japanese man’s neck not long ago, the state prosecutor was the one that charged him with a felony. And so on.
  I feel like we probably disagree quite a lot about how often the prosecutors are the bad type as opposed to the good type, and that’s why we view the whole system so differently. That’s all good, we can talk about it. That conversation might be enlightening for both of us.
  See? Progress. Imagine if instead of just lobbing a baby-seal analogy at me when the exact same thing in a “just following orders” one hadn’t worked, repeating back to me things I’d already argued to you as if that was somehow productive, you’d started out by reading my argument and summarizing it back to me to see if you’d understood it completely, maybe asked questions about it, tried to have a conversation on that level. If you’d done that without me having to spend a bunch of messages being super condescending to you and forcing you into a corner where you had to do it, we could have saved some time.
  
  I don’t think you can blame the prosecutors for doing their jobs (assuming they’re not breaking the rules in how they do it) under that system.
  So, what did you mean by this?
  
  I was careless in my phrasing. By saying “not breaking the rules,” I was meaning to encompass any kind of maliciousness in prosecution even if it is allowed under “the rules.” Which, in the current system, it often is, it would have been better for me to make that clear.
  
  That's why I specifically quoted that part, so if I was misunderstanding you, you could have corrected me.
  On that basis, I think we are substantially in agreement.
  
  Glad we had this talk then lol

27 comments