Is Everybody Conscious?

Our justice system nowadays often assumes that victims tell the truth about their feelings following an alleged crime.

But, do they?

And how does anybody know?

So, No, this is not an essay about consciousness per se. It is about our corrupt justice system.

But in order to get to the meat of this article - which has much to do with consciousness - I need for you to accept the commonly-accepted view that you cannot determine for sure that anybody else but you, is a conscious being.

To you, people might look and behave as if they are conscious, but this does not mean that they are conscious.

You just assume that they are.

But you might be wrong!

You might be the only human being that has any consciousness.

All the other human beings whom you know might just be zombies or robots; a bit like your computer.

However, I am not suggesting that they are, in fact, zombies or robots; simply that they might be; and, further, that there is no way of you really knowing what the true situation really is.

In general, therefore, we cannot determine the level of consciousness that exists within another being.

And so, for example, if a woman claims that she was terrified when a spider crept across the carpet, you cannot know, for sure, what experience, if any, that she is describing.

So, you just take her at her word, and you presume that the feeling that she is describing is, more or less, the same feeling that you would be having if you were to describe something as 'terrifying'.

But now, just imagine that you get to know this woman better. And you discover that she often describes even the most trivial of situations as 'terrifying'.

A light shower of rain is 'terrifying'.

A light shower of rain is 'terrifying'.

The thought of having to get up early tomorrow morning is 'terrifying'.

A small pimple on her face is 'terrifying'.

Well, in this case, you would probably have to re-assess your view about her earlier experience with the spider.

You would, perhaps, downgrade it, and now presume that her experience with the spider was more akin to an experience that you would describe as 'mildly irritating'.

And this type of re-adjustment often takes place as we get to know people and we become more familiar with their various behaviours and with how they use language.

 we can never know what, exactly, is consciously going on inside their heads.

And yet, we can never know what, exactly, is consciously going on inside their heads.

There might be absolutely nothing.

Or there might simply be a large difference in scale when compared to the consciousness that you typically experience.

Maybe her conscious experience is no greater than the conscious experience of an earthworm.

But we can never know.

It follows, therefore, that when a woman claims to be 'terrified' by some experience, we can never know what she actually felt as a result of that experience.

She might have felt nothing.

She might have felt a little.

She might have felt a lot.

But we have absolutely no way of knowing what she felt.

We just take her at her word, and we assume that she is truthfully describing some reality that we can never access.

And so it is something of a travesty that western laws, these days, often punish male offenders in relationship crimes on the basis of how their victims allegedly felt.

But nobody knows how they felt.

Only they, themselves, know how they felt.

And there is no way of testing how they felt.

most of the western criminal justice system has, surely, been horribly corrupted.

As such, most of the western criminal justice system has, surely, been horribly corrupted.

We cannot see a woman's consciousness.

Neither can we touch it, taste it, smell it or hear it.

Furthermore, when women are making criminal accusations against men for relationship crimes, they are (rightly or wrongly) aggressing against these men. They are, therefore, highly-prejudiced towards them; probably hating them, if the allegations are serious ones.

And so how can it possibly be justifiable for the law ever to assume that what these women claim to be the case (when it comes to their feelings) is true? - particularly given that these women know full well that nobody could possibly investigate their claims.

We also know that people often lie when they wish to hurt others whom they hate; particularly if their lies cannot be tested.

And people also exaggerate when they are in such circumstances.

Governments also offer women who make allegations of abuse numerous financial and legal incentives to make such allegations.

And women, themselves, gain enormous power and leverage against men by making abuse allegations, or by simply threatening to do so.

In addition, of course, the misandric feminist propaganda concerning relationship crimes that has deluged the west for some three decades is bound to have had an effect on the tendency for women to lie or to exaggerate about their feelings when it comes to relationship crimes.

And it also seems to me that women, as a whole, often collude with this propaganda simply in order to empower each other.

 the probability that women will lie or exaggerate about any feelings arising from alleged incidents of abuse seems likely to be extremely high

All in all, therefore, the probability that women will lie or exaggerate about any feelings arising from alleged incidents of abuse seems likely to be extremely high; so high, in fact, that any evidence about these feelings should be mostly ignored.

Indeed, this used to be the case until the justice system was forced by the feminists and the politically-corrected to take feelings into account.

But given that there is no valid way to test people's feelings, this change in policy demonstrates just how corrupt and immoral has this justice system now become.

Indeed, so ridiculous is the current situation, that people can now be brought to trial simply for having "offended" somebody.

And yet there are no means whatsoever for determining whether or not someone has been offended, or to what extent.

(Remember: You cannot even determine whether or not someone is conscious.)

The feelings of the particular victims involved should therefore be irrelevant.

Punishments for crimes should always be based on the facts that can be deduced by looking at the appropriate evidence. The feelings of the particular victims involved should therefore be irrelevant.

Please note, however, that this is not to say that feelings should have no bearing in the justice system; but that they should be taken into account in an overall manner, rather than with reference to specific cases.

Thus, for example, a man who robs a store while wielding a knife and threatening people with violence is likely to create much more fear and trauma than a man who bears no arms, makes no threats, and who simply dips his hands into the cashbox and runs away.

As such, the punishment for the former should be more severe than for the latter.

And the punishments for such crimes should reflect some kind of public consensus as to how serious they should be regarded.

 it is ... unjust for the justice system to pay specific regard to the feelings of particular victims

But it is, at the very outset, unjust for the justice system to pay specific regard to the feelings of particular victims when deciding any punishments for a particular crime.

Apart from the fact that these feelings can never be tested, the victims, themselves, are highly unlikely to be impartial reporters of them.

And, of course, people are different.

What might be traumatic for one person might be of no significance at all for another person.

A further negative consequence of the law taking into account feelings in such cases is that, in order to reap further advantage from being a victim of abuse (e.g. greater financial compensation, a lengthier sentence for the accused etc) victims will tend to ratchet up their alleged state of suffering; aided and abetted by various professionals and organisations that stand to gain from this escalation.

The upshot is that our society tends to be continually assaulted by waves of abuse hysteria, as victims and their support groups try to maximise their gains.

Finally, if the justice system is to be respected, it simply cannot continue to base any of its sentencing polices on the completely unverifiable statements of hostile witnesses.

.................

End Notes:

1. Notice again that the above provides further evidence for the view that western governments are nowadays wilfully fomenting abuse hysteria - by actively encouraging victims to ratchet up their alleged levels of hurt following any incident.

defendants are being disadvantaged quite significantly by allowing un-testable evidence from hostile witnesses to count against them.

2. The justice system is supposed to give the defendants in the courtrooms the benefits arising from any doubts. However, it is quite clear that, with regard to this issue, the very opposite is the case, and that the defendants are being disadvantaged quite significantly by allowing un-testable evidence from hostile witnesses - i.e. their accusers - to count against them.

Also see, ...

Good Chance Of Conviction?

The Golden Rule