Eff's Rambles (Archive)


Ethics of Prosecutors and Defense attorneys

Perhaps this is a naive question, and maybe I should just try to find out for myself, but then I would not have another thing at present to put in this blog, at least not in the way I currently intend to express it, but I wonder if there is ever a contradiction, a kind of ethical inconsistency, in moving from one side of the law to another. I specifically refer to the transition, and becoming, of prosecutors into defense attornies. But I suppose the same concern could exist in the converse.

My understanding is that prosecutors, using the evidence available to them, deduce the guilt of suspects and try to construct and support arguments intended to convince juries of those suspects', now defendents, guilt. I also understand that defense attornies try to find flaws, of varying significance, in prosecutors' cases against their clients, and that defense attornies might have obligations to perform zealously on behalf of their clients, which could entail lower standards for reasonable doubt.

What I wonder about, and what troubles me, is that it seems, to me, that the acid test prosecutors might pose to their own assessments of suspects' cases are likely to be lowered in standards, so as to make those cases more easily classified as insufficient to demonstrate the guilt of the suspects, if prosecutors act in the capacity of defense attornies.

So I wonder if these prosecutors who become defense attorneys are conflicting with their own standards or could be becoming more fair when they move to the other side.


Blog Things

My French name is Xavier Chrestien

My outrageous name is Neal Downe

I'm 50% weird. My Hawaiian name is Meka Keahi.
My quick and dirty Iq is "Your IQ Is 110; Your Logical Intelligence is Average; Your Verbal Intelligence is Exceptional; Your Mathematical Intelligence is Above Average; Your General Knowledge is Genius."

The True You
You want your girlfriend or boyfriend to be more relaxed, calm, and composed.
With respect to money, you spend as little as possible.
You think good luck is something you won't attain - you expect bad luck.
The hidden side of your personality tends to be a little selfish. You only do what interests you.
You are tend to think about others' feelings a lot, perhaps because you are so eager to be liked.
When it comes to finding a romantic partner, you base your search on information from your friends.

Your Taste in Music:
80's Pop: High Influence
80's Alternative: Medium Influence
90's Pop: Medium Influence
Classic Rock: Medium Influence
80's R&B: Low Influence
80's Rock: Low Influence
90's Hip Hop: Low Influence
Adult Alternative: Low Influence
Alternative Rock: Low Influence
Progressive Rock: Low Influence
R&B: Low Influence

Your True Birth Month Is October
Just and fair
Loves to chat
Bad tempered
Loves outdoors
Very opinionated
Strong clairvoyance
Attractive and suave
Easily lose confidence
Always making friends
Does not lie or pretend
Touchy and easily jealous
Inner and physical beauty
Treats friends importantly
Seldom helps unless asked
Easily hurt but recovers easily
Soft-spoken, loving and caring
Loves those who love in return
Spendthrift and easily influenced
Does not care of what others think
Loves to travel, the arts and literature

I am 55% normal

The art piece that best describes me is "From the Lake, No. 1"
by Georgia O'Keeffe

I am 10% extroverted, 90% introverted

Left and right brain: You Are 65% Left Brained, 35% Right Brained

My religious philosophy is atheist.

My blog personalityis pensive and philosophical

My Expression Number is 2
A mediator and peacemaker, you get along well with others.
You light up in group situations, but struggle when you're alone.
Modest and understated, you accomplish more than you give yourself credit for.

Cooperative, courteous, and considerate are words people use to describe you.
You know how to handle anyone, no matter how much of a pain they might be.
Tactful and friendly, nearly everyone who knows you admires you.

Sometimes you are overly sensitive and easily hurt.
When you get too sensitive, you can become shy and uncertain.
At your worst, you can be apathetic and withdrawn.

I was actually born under:
The year of the monkey

Full of spunk, you are the original party animal.
You bring fun, activity, and stimulation to any event.
Self-control is not one of your strong points; you have been known to over indulge.
Cheerful and energetic, you can turn the most boring thing into something fun.

You are most compatible with a Rat or Dragon.

I should have been born under:
The year of the horse

You've got a ton of energy - and need plenty of room to roam.
You tend to follow your whims, and it's hard for you to stick to one thing.
Specific jobs, loves, and friends are always changing and never a part of your life for long.
Very intuitive, you tend to know what people are thinking before they say a word.

You are most compatible with a Dog or Tiger

My Political Profile
Overall: 45% Conservative, 55% Liberal
Social Issues: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal
Personal Responsibility: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal
Fiscal Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal
Ethics: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal
Defense and Crime: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

My personality types.

#1 Match: ISFJ
The Nurturer

You have a strong need to belong, and you very loyal.
A good listener, you excell at helping others in practical ways.
In your spare time, you enjoy engaging your senses through art, cooking, and music.
You find it easy to be devoted to one person, who you do special things for.

You would make a good interior designer, chef, or child psychologist.

#2 Match: ISFP
The Artist

You are a gifted artist or musician (though your talents may be dormant right now).
You enjoy spending your free time in nature, and you are good with animals and children.
Simply put, you enjoy bueaty in all its forms and live for the simple pleasures in life.
Gentle, sensitive, and compassionate - you are good at recognizing people's unspoken needs.

You would make a good veterinarian, pediatrician, or composer.

#3 Match: ISTJ
The Duty Fulfiller

You are responsible, reliable, and hardworking - you get the job done.
You prefer productive hobbies, like woodworking or knittings.
Quiet and serious, you are well prepared for whatever life hands you.
Conservative and down-to-earth, you hardly ever do anything crazy.

You would make a great business executive, accountant, or lawyer.

#4 Match: ISTP
The Mechanic

You are calm and collected, even in the most difficult of situations.
A person of action and self-direction, you love being independent.
To outsiders yous eem impulsive, surprising, and unpredictable.
You are good at understanding how all things work, except for people.

You would make an excellent pilot, forensic pathologist, or athlete.

#5 Match: ESFJ
The Caregiver

You are sympathetic and caring, putting friends and family first.
A creature of habit, you prefer routines and have trouble with change.
You love being in groups - whether you're helping people or working on a project.
You are good at listening, laughing, and bringing out the best in people.

You would make a great nurse, social worker, or teacher


Yet another incessant firearms debate

Yes, I saw another one, and I posted the following there first.

I call these the 7 sinful points.

1. As far as guns having the only purpose of killing. In some cases, good.

2. I am interested in a full refutation of why a gun can never be effective for individual defense, not situational statistics that have yet to disprove a simple, and basic fact: Guns are within their physical capacity to effect the desired out come of self preservation and the defeat, and yes that might mean death, of an assailant.

3. Yes or no, is distance and power considered a standard for most good strategem?

4. Situations which are variable cannot disprove the validity of my effectiveness claim. If one sites that a merchant with a gun is likely to be killed by the armed robber, he first admits it is not a guarantee, and he second confirms that the situation does not totally preclude the merchant from having the possibility of using his gun to save his life. The merchant's right to a firearm cannot be measured by the improbability of its effectiveness, since that improbability is not an absolute, making preventing his ownership of a gun on that basis unfair.

5. Self defense against intended harm does preclude consequences from the use of the means in question, guns, of that defense. Persons whom are confronted with a threat to themselves are not morally bound to give up a means of defense solely on the basis that society might be harmed by his gun or the guns of other persons, for which he has no responsibility for.

6. It is relevant and true that the police cannot be everywhere. And There might not be certainty of even the obligation of police to aid people, let alone to try to prevent harm to them. And that obligation, to be carried to its arguable necessity, would entail granting powers that would have the same effect of a police state, that of constant and large presence, which might be good or bad, depending on a populace's relations with their police and other police, and allowing constant searches for a very hard to predict event, I presume, unless someone knows when all violent crimes occur.

7. Superiority and balance of force does not make one immoral.

Iterating again old contentions I have made, though maybe the phrasing has some slight differences.

I am right. Period.


Believing in something: Rallying for and against.

If you believe in something, could you march with others under one banner advocating additional causes, or methods, you do not fully believe in or understand? Or, could you believe in anything strongly enough to take on unintended associations?

I do not think that I could.



I wonder if most people that criticise the msm (mainstream media) for its news coverage, going into sweeping generalizations about its various forms of bias, about the supposed superiority of other sources, where some even proclaim them as excellent alternatives and not just supplementals and verifiers or debunkers, base their opinion on solid study and long experience in reviewing the msm. I don't know. Maybe most do. I've no intent to study the matter. But I still get the impression that some people are convinced of what others say, or of their own beliefs, by second hand sources and what might be simple errors by the given member of the msm, which they come to hate. I might be wrong. I might be blind to the truth. But I still have my doubts. I still wonder, as I basically alluded, how much people consider the justification for their disdain.


Oh I thought I might as well.

I do not know if anyone has noticed this, but I rarely blurb, or whatever it is called. No, I do not present long and well reasoned contentions with a lot of sources either. Whatever you think of me my opinions and arguments are almost completely my own. I admit that I am a bit proud of that, though it makes it harder for me to claim I was deceived. I really do think for myself. Or try to. And now for the "short" "blurb" thought for at least today.

People hand out compliments too much.

I appreciate the ones I have received, and I think other's should be thankful for the ones they get. But compliments can give people a false impression of greater interest in them than the complimenters actually have. And I sometimes wonder why some messages get complimented. I see comments, my own included, that get a bit of praise and I think to myself that nothing said in those comments deserves that kind of feedback. I do not throw around compliments much for those reasons. I am hard to please and do not want to give people any wrong impressions as to how much I can and will participate.


Perhaps I am just very peculiar.

Well, I am.

I do not understand people; how they reason. I often do not even get their ethics as well as I would like to, and I have been complimented for my balance. I think my reasoning might be offensive to some, because I will often fence sit because of it on evidence people around me think is the most blatant proof that an issue is confirmed to be factually one way, whichever way that is.

Here is an example, based on real occurences, that make me wonder about how people come to conclusions. But before I give them I state here that I realize that any example I give could itself be a hasty generalization. But my point is not to prove some people less intelligent than me, nor is it to claim I have a superior understanding of logic and how to construct arguments. What I mostly want is for someone smarter than me to explain how it is that people I think should know better either do not, or how it is I am being the idiot.

The following names are fictitious.

Alpha is in a chat room talking with multiple people.

Later some one named Beta comes into the room and begins to cite supposed and, or, proven evil acts by a nation, via its military.

Beta: "A soldier from Ocran's Marines raped a 12 year old girl in Goshnu!"

Beta: "The Ocran army covered up the rape!"

Beta: "The Ocran military if full of barbaric arseholes [yes, I said arseholes, so keep that in mind as you read this and, damn it, appreciate it!], they murdered an unarmed man in the war of Seele Coast!"

Beta: "In 2032, 2040 and 2044, 15 rapes and murders were committed by Ocran troops, and 12 went unpunished! Where is the justice!"

Alpha is following all of this, wondering what these incidences are supposed to prove. He thinks that the examples are too statistically small and infrequent to justify a negative generalization about Ocran and its army.

Beta continues to list examples in war and outside of war.

But, after a bit, Beta announces a whopper of an accusation.

Beta: "In 2016 the Ocran navy bombed an innocent village, went in and massacred the survivors! Over 2000 deaths on their hands!"

Alpha sees that and is thinking to himself, "could that be true?" Thinking further, "that is terrible, if it is true." Alpha does not know enough to dispute what Beta claims.

Here is where my reasoning seems to differ from Beta. I, as Alpha, come up and ask what to me is a salient point.

Alpha: "Beta, I do not know if your last claim is true, but if it is, why did you not mention that first?"

I have never been answered, that I can remember, when I ask the Betas I have encountered why they chose to build up with insufficient sample to prove their accusation. I guess it is to bring credibility to a greater charge of wrong doing. Perhaps they intend people to believe that if they can accept that small and infrequent incidences of heinous crimes are likely true, or which they know to be true, they must accept the possibility of a greater evil act having occured, one that must be the result of policy or negligent discipline. But I do not make inferences from small examples of dubious significance. To me, though it might be less believable without earlier examples of supposed greater plausibility, the largest example should come first. It might be that I cannot disprove a large example, so I am left in a difficult position, one that might be untenable, of trying to be objective yet morally consistent. I can express doubt, of course, or try to find context to explain why the large example event might have happened. It is difficult to fight such a large example. The validity of the smaller examples is less relevant than the large one because the implication was not strongly supported by them. But the large example is powerful because it could be strong evidence of the characterization of Ocran as evil. I wonder if I am the only one that sees it that way.


Let's take a stroll down memory lane

  • Shall we?
  • 8/04/2005


    It's not that I'm particularly prolific, but I do feel as if the ideas have been sapped from me. I don't think it's a case of saying everything I can say, but of saying everything again, even if in a slightly altered form. I suppose there are only so many ways a person who couldn't score better than slightly above average on some logic tests, or parts therein, can arrogantly tell people they are being fallacious in their reasoning.

    I think, though, that what motivates me more isn't pure logic, rationality, or at least the most reasonable use of emotions in any kind of determination, but fairness. I hate presumptions. I despise precluding anything because of clear prejudice on my part. Have I done any of those? I assume I have and will again, but I'm one of those odd people that self loathes and thinks too much of himself at the same time. First bit of arrogance in that is my willingness to call that normal human trait of condlicting views of the self "odd", implying a possible uiqueness in my being. Well, to me I'm a bit different than most people I know, as I tend to argue from premises, and with contentions, that aren't the most cited. I don't do as well on logic tests as I want to, and I prefer to think it's because the tests weren't clear, but I doubt I'm that lucky. I think this is why many commentators watch politics, they are hoping some one who's more of an idiot, in some way or more, than them will say something they can write about.

    A small little comment here, and not about idiots but about sociopaths. I kind of like them. Not for what they do, and I hate it when a person is devoid of conscience, but for what can be done to them. I can't say I'd feel as bad for violence inflicted upon the remorseless than for the guilt ridden wrecks. A person could careless? Ok, smash his head into the table. Well, it's easier to be violent removed from a hypothetical situation, unless one is violent in nature. I'm not, but I do get angry easily. I'll holler and curse quite readily in my own environment.

    Oh, how awful for everyone reading this, I thought of one more thing to say.

    I might've touched on this before, in one of the posts on bullies, but I've noticed some adults have a hyprocritical conception of maturity and of when someone's being immature. Here's an example: One person is being rude, and someone points it out asks the person to stop. On its surface, there's nothing wrong with that. But if the rudeness of the first person is exaggerated or the criticism in response to either case is given in a rude manner, the critic should be willing to admit it, right? No, for to defend your conduct against harsh criticism isn't a right. You, according to these judging bullies, must not only accept how they criticised you, but agree with them in everything. To them, they are entitled to attack you in an undeserved way, and you are an immature baby for challenging your treatment. Beware abuses of what maturity is. Bullies shouldn't be allowed to define it. Accept what I say. If you refuse, I suggest you grow up.


    New Feature

    As the handful of readers of this blog may know, I have a go stats counter at the bottom of the page.

    Satrting today and at the beginning of each month, or not long thereafter, I shall give select data from my GoStats account for this blog. I have much of it protected now, though I might open up some information later.

    • Under the attendance summary I have had 114 hosts with 120 visitors and 178 sessions in 30 days.
    • My page rank is 165 under the category of Government & society.
    • I am ahead of and below these pages respectively, http://iamjacksrestlessthoughts.blogspot.com/ http://www.valparaisofire.org/
    • The search word hits that most often brought up this blog are:
      Words/ Count
      and /2 (3.92%) Same for the rest.
      moral /war
    • Under search phrases (also with equal results for each):
      Phrases /Count
      moral reasoning to end iraq war/ 1 (25.00%)
      "i have nice feet"
      monstercow video
    • Under Page Popularity the top pages are mostly the home page or the older url or blogger in general. So here are the top 3 pages beyond the home page:
      Pages/ Count

    effsrambles.blogspot.com/2005/06/what-is-liar.html /18 (2.61%)
    my_rambles.blogspot.com/2004/11/re-war-and-moralconsistency.html /16 (2.32%)
    effsrambles.blogspot.com/2005/04/you-do-not-understand-pain-because-you.html /12 (1.74%)

    • A majority of people do not go past the first page, almost 73 % choose not to.
    • A slim majority spend 4 minutes on the blog (est).
    • The longest time spent here, by a minority, is 46 minutes.
    • Finally, the top 5 nations represented by visitors are:
      Country/ Count

    United States/ 144 (53.14%)
    Greece/ 23 (8.49%)
    Canada/ 20 (7.38%)
    Australia/ 17 (6.27%)
    New Zealand/ 12 (4.43%)


    Online dictionary at www.Answers.com

    Concise information in one click