Intent

~ Clarissa

A curious difference: being under the influence of alcohol or drugs is a mitigating factor in the US but an aggravating factor in Russia.

The American justice system is all about intent, motive, mind-reading. I find that very disturbing. None of these things matter to the victims, yet every other criminal trial is dedicated to the weird guesswork about thoughts and motives.

I watch a lot of Forensic Files, etc programs, hence the observation.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Clarissa

14 thoughts on “Intent”

  1. Yes, I find this an irritating aspect of US culture. Not having meant to, not having done something maliciously, does make a difference in some circumstances (“Oh, I am sorry, I did not realize this topic was uncomfortable”) but so many excuses are made on this basis. At the university I want to tell people: “Well, if you did X and did not realize it would cause Y, you are incompetent, or at least uninformed. So this is either an enactment of policy, or an error, or the result of incompetence. That is, if it is what you wanted to do, you should say so, and if it is not and you care, you should fix it.” This has been VERY unwelcome the few times I have said it.

    Like

    Reply

  2. “The American justice system is all about intent, motive, mind-reading. ”

    That is why abstracted (or constructed) notions of identity are so important to the American. Because one cannot engage in adequate mind reading unless one also has an imaginative or ideological figuration of the range of behavior of certain types of human being. A “woman” of instance will necessarily behave differently from “a man”, so we need to mind read her differently.

    Like

    Reply

    1. This is just a classic emotional abuse move: I know who you are (I have determined your identity and motives) so I know what you are up to, what you mean, etc.

      It is one thing to say that to an actual villain, with actual evidence: I know what you are doing, GW Bush! To ascribe things to people for your own benefit is very different.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Sure, but I was expressing that it is logically unavoidable if one wants to be able to look into the motivations of people for criminal justice purposes. One then ALSO needs to equip them with a range possible for a particular identity. One has to delve into essentialist confabulations and come up with some projected parameters.

        Like

        Reply

          1. Z, if you would like to join a thingie I have created, we have started a shamanism channel, which is interesting as an alternative form of therapy. Let us call it philosophy therapy or dialectical therapy. It involves talking about our experiences in relation to philosophy.

            https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuQzaDmCy9S__W6g9F0I57A

            We just talk to each other on skype and record it. There is one other person who will join us soon.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

    2. Yes, you are right, Jennifer. I’m seeing very often on these true crime shows how people on trial are being castigated not for the actual crime but for not performing the identity role correctly. Or being rewarded for performing it well.

      Like

      Reply

        1. Oh yes. I actually saw a show recently about a woman who was convicted for the sole reason that the smoked at her child’s funeral. She kept explaining that she was on tranquilizer a and had no idea what she was doing but nobody cared. Because everybody knows extremely well the correct behavior of a bereaved parent. Even if they never experienced it themselves.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Yes, false epistemologies abound. I want to put together something, some day about how to detect the false from the real, but I am afraid that the only real way to authenticity is though losing oneself and finding oneself again, otherwise one is programmed with a lot of untested and merely assumed notions.

            Like

            Reply

Leave a comment