I don’t know what “good at making correct moral decisions” looks like
Maybe you don’t know, but at least millions of people, in the judicial systems of nearly every country, claim they do. And these folks, publicly announce, that they have the power to prosecute and decide your fate the moment you step on their territory, partially or sometimes entirely based on their certitude in their ‘correct moral decisions’.
So I think JBlack was pointing out that it seems a bit odd that you could be unaware.
I don’t recall seeing such people say so. They are there in various roles to apply the law as best they can. They make various judgements, moral and otherwise, but where do they go about saying that they are good at making these judgements? When a decision must be made, one cannot infer anything about the certitude with which it is made.
When a decision must be made, one cannot infer anything about the certitude with which it is made.
It seems your a bit confused here? Prosecutors in many countries have great leeway to pick and choose. And even after choosing to prosecute someone, at each step along the way they have nearly complete leeway to pick and choose whether to continue on to the next step until final judgement or just drop it one day.
There are very rarely cases where they ‘must’ make a decision on a particular individual, particularly in the US.
I don’t know of any countries where the opposite is true, perhaps you know of one?
Prosecutors in many countries have great leeway to pick and choose.
I.e. to make decisions. Everything they do in their jobs involves a decision to do that thing. I am not clear how your reply relates to my comment. And none of this relates to your claim that these people are claiming to be “good at making correct moral decisions”.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how prosecution systems or the judiciary works in general?
To elaborate, there are several stages along which the ‘decisions’ of the prosecutors have close to zero impact, if the case does get dropped before final judgement. Even if there is solid evidence of guilt available from the beginning.
At least in common law countries.
But that also doesn’t prevent a prosecutor from going all the way with an actually innocent person based on a belief in being “good at making correct moral decisions” and deciding their fate.
For example, if they have a dozen cases on their desk, half actually innocent, half actually guilty, there simply is no ‘must’ there. They could decide to drop all of them, drop none, decide based on gut feel, etc…
And the default is to do nothing and let the paperwork sit and collect dust until the next prosecutor comes in, who can also do the same thing, etc., until the case gets too old and is automatically closed.
Only a small fraction makes it into any court at all, and only a small fraction of those ever go all the way through. Sustained partially, or sometimes entirely, based on their certitude in their ‘correct moral decisions’.
Maybe you don’t know, but at least millions of people, in the judicial systems of nearly every country, claim they do. And these folks, publicly announce, that they have the power to prosecute and decide your fate the moment you step on their territory, partially or sometimes entirely based on their certitude in their ‘correct moral decisions’.
So I think JBlack was pointing out that it seems a bit odd that you could be unaware.
I don’t recall seeing such people say so. They are there in various roles to apply the law as best they can. They make various judgements, moral and otherwise, but where do they go about saying that they are good at making these judgements? When a decision must be made, one cannot infer anything about the certitude with which it is made.
It seems your a bit confused here? Prosecutors in many countries have great leeway to pick and choose. And even after choosing to prosecute someone, at each step along the way they have nearly complete leeway to pick and choose whether to continue on to the next step until final judgement or just drop it one day.
There are very rarely cases where they ‘must’ make a decision on a particular individual, particularly in the US.
I don’t know of any countries where the opposite is true, perhaps you know of one?
I.e. to make decisions. Everything they do in their jobs involves a decision to do that thing. I am not clear how your reply relates to my comment. And none of this relates to your claim that these people are claiming to be “good at making correct moral decisions”.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how prosecution systems or the judiciary works in general?
To elaborate, there are several stages along which the ‘decisions’ of the prosecutors have close to zero impact, if the case does get dropped before final judgement. Even if there is solid evidence of guilt available from the beginning.
At least in common law countries.
But that also doesn’t prevent a prosecutor from going all the way with an actually innocent person based on a belief in being “good at making correct moral decisions” and deciding their fate.
For example, if they have a dozen cases on their desk, half actually innocent, half actually guilty, there simply is no ‘must’ there. They could decide to drop all of them, drop none, decide based on gut feel, etc…
And the default is to do nothing and let the paperwork sit and collect dust until the next prosecutor comes in, who can also do the same thing, etc., until the case gets too old and is automatically closed.
Only a small fraction makes it into any court at all, and only a small fraction of those ever go all the way through. Sustained partially, or sometimes entirely, based on their certitude in their ‘correct moral decisions’.