Various Thoughts XIX

Federalist 47 tells us that tyranny is “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands.”

How does this relate to regulatory commissions in the government? They set the rules for laws passed by Congress, and they are the ones who decide who violates them. They also act as judge and jury.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A transgender individual is likely to be viewed as a member of his/her new sex and previous records altered to reflect the new situation. That includes the birth certificate. The new documents would also contain a new name.

Irrespective of any questions concerning society's readiness to accept this concept in general, suppose someone, or, indeed, some governmental agency, like the police, was trying to locate this individual but was only able to get information from those who only knew the person in question prior to the identity change. How would you locate someone whose name and sex you get wrong?

A court-authorized name change or one that accompanies marriage is far more likely to leave some prior information unchanged, although they do make the use of public records more difficult.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There's an explosion of accusations of sexual misconduct in recent years. In all religions, Around the globe. Chances are good that human beings haven't changed recently and it is what it always was, but the reaction of society differs from time to time, and our perception of what constitutes harassment too (now we feel free to relate current feelings as well as past perceptions – true or not) is more inflated. “She” claims to have been abused and we expect society to act on the basis of what she says and how we react to it: to praise our behavior and to decry that of others, irrespective of of the nature of the accusations. All virtue is on the side of the accuser for she is telling “a” truth that is beyond denial, even if it is not always “the” truth. And for her act she is worthy of praise while the accused is not deserving of trial. The act of which he is accused is heinous, and it should be left at that.

How society viewed the act at the time it occurred is irrelevant. Present standards are all that counts.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Like so many others I'm a television lawyer. Obviously that's knowing a negligible part of the law, but enough to form some shallow ideas about what I see. They're probably wrong but they're interesting and promote thought.

The issue in question is intent. Can a felony be committed by someone who has no intent to do so? Sometimes yes and sometimes no according to what I've seen. Separately I've learned that under the Fourth Geneva Convention some people can't be prosecuted for crimes they didn't personally commit, which blows a hole in all the trials of those who drove getaway for murderers.

And what is the status of intent in religious law? In Judaism there are some sins which ire said to take place irrespective of intent, but not all. I'm confused.

January 16, 2018