In December of 1799 George Washington
died, a victim of his doctors. His infection didn't
kill him, but their "treatment" did. Like
all medical "experts" of his time, what
they did for his infection was to drain him of a
quart or two of blood.
The theory of the time, from the Roman doctor Galen,
was that disease was caused by an imbalance of mythical
things called "humors." So you bled the
patient to "balance the humors."
So a sane person asks, "Didn't those medical
clowns NOTICE that the patients they bled weakened
and died?"
Well, look at us today. Professors and experts constantly
recommend leftist programs. They demand that criminals
be "rehabilitated" instead of punished.
The crime rate soars. They demand an end to phonetic
teaching of reading in schools. Literacy rates collapse.
They insist that if the government owns all the
industry, it will be efficient. Over half the world,
Communist and socialist third world, used this system
and sank into ever more desperate poverty.
It is not just that no program recommended by our
social experts ever WORKS. The fact is that, like
medical bleeding, every program recommended by our
respected AND PAID experts is a DISASTER.
So a sane person asks, "Didn't those social
experts ever notice that everything they did weakened
and killed? Why should they? As long as they have
degrees given them by other social experts who caused
other disasters, we pay them, we respect them, and
we listen to them.
When no one demands that a policy WORK, the right
degree has always been a license to kill and wreck
while getting paid for it, whether in the social
sciences today or in yesterday's medicine.
|
The argument is that the more lawyers
we pay for, the more justice we get. There is not
the slightest trace of evidence for this. But we
don't ask for any. Lawyers have degrees and judges
have credentials. Since we worship those degrees
and credentials, and are happy to pay for them,
we assume that they are of some use.
Thinking that credentials are necessarily related
to justice is exactly like the medical bleeding
that went on for almost two thousand years. It is
more than useless, it is destructive, but we pay
for the degrees and experience and credentials without
asking for any proof that they provide justice.
Again, we have never asked for any such evidence.
And, as I keep pointing out, in the real world,
the public gets absolutely no more than the public
demands.
So people pay through the nose for legal credentials,
and then they say, "There is no justice."
They are exactly right. There are credentials, not
justice, because all they demand is credentials,
and not justice.
Justice is not synonymous with acquittals. It is
true that a fortune spent on appeals and legal technicalities
will provide more acquittals. But there is no evidence
that a complicated legal procedure acquits more
INNOCENT people than a system without the experts
would. As in the Miranda case, where the person
acquitted was a confessed and known murderer, these
technicalities do demonstrably free a lot of guilty
and dangerous people, and they lead to the use of
precedents to free more guilty and dangerous people.
So, the argument goes, since the system frees lots
and lots of guilty people, it must be fairer to
innocent people. But technicalities are seldom if
ever used to bring in more proof of what is true.
It is used to suppress evidence and hide the law
from reality. All that legal "expertise"
is intended to help the guilty. There is no evidence
that, in the end, it helps the innocent more than
it hurts them. As always when we don't ask for any
evidence except credentials, we get the OPPOSITE
of what we are paying for.
I believe that many innocent people have been executed,
but that is not the question. The question is, would
more lawyers and more appeals and more technicalities
have saved INNOCENT people? We know it saves GUILTY
people, and prevents the conviction of lots more
guilty people.
We have thousands of examples of that. But we do
not have, nor do we ask for, a shred of evidence
that all those dollars for experts saves INNOCENT
people.
For legal "expertise" to help the innocent,
it is not enough to say that innocent people get
convicted. There is another condition that is absolutely
never mentioned. Those who make the case that legal
"expertise" is worth anything at all must
show that legal technicalities would have SAVED
the INNOCENT person.
We do have plenty of proof that legal expertise
KILLS lots of innocent people every day. The only
cases we know about for sure are those where the
Expert Opinions we pay for and live under freed
GUILTY people to kill innocent ones.
As I said, this blind faith in experts gives us
the OPPOSITE of what we pay for. To fully understand
this, we must discuss a fact which liberals and
the pope, in their desperation to look good by attacking
the death penalty, never mention:
This fact is that not all the innocent people on
earth are on Death Row.
By blindly allowing "legal expertise"
to be worth money and respect, we all agree that
innocent people killed by repeat felons released
by legal experts are not real people. Only an innocent
person on Death Row is really innocent.
A ball park figure: I would guess that for every
innocent person executed on Death Row, several hundred
innocent people are killed on the streets by a repeat
felon who is let go or not arrested because of "legal
expertise." And we worship this expertise and
we pay for this expertise.
A sane public would never agree with this. Practically
everybody in America agrees with this. So we spend
untold sums of money on the possibility that, to
repeat, TWO conditions are met: 1) innocent people
are executed, and 2) - please don't forget this
one - that the efforts of all those expensive legal
technicians would have freed the INNOCENT ones.
All respectable conservatives agree with the present
system. No respectable conservative ever asks if
those appeals save more INNOCENT people than they
KILL. Just as no respectable conservative will ever
ask any liberal to define the word "racist,"
no respectable conservative will ever demand that
"legal expertise" somehow correlate with
JUSTICE. As with bleeding, we are paying for expertise,
and killing people by doing it.
The simple fact that never got asked through the
centuries was whether bleeding actually did any
GOOD. In plain English, were those medical "experts"
providing us with MEDICINE, or were they just showing
us their degrees and their "medical experience."
Until we demanded medicine, not degrees or experience,
millions of people, including the Father of Our
Country, died under the "experts'" knives.
As long as we demand only degrees and Judicial Opinions,
with no evidence they provide us with the slightest
bit --- and I mean the SLIGHTEST bit - of JUSTICE,
we will die like dogs on the street.
Why?
Because we asked for it.
|