Psychological reactions to a proposed law.

[Boojatta]

Proposed law: Deliberately punish one who is known to merely resemble a particular criminal.

For example, there are video images of a bank robber. Someone whose face superficially resembles the face in the video images could be given some degree of official punishment.

I'm not talking about mistaken identity. Before the punishment is imposed, the authorities reach the conclusion that the person who superficially resembles the criminal definitely isn't the criminal. In fact, it could be exactly the same evidence that allows people to observe a superficial resemblance that also allows for the conclusion that the person who superficially resembles the criminal isn't the criminal.

I have gathered a small amount of non-scientific, anecdotal evidence on DU suggesting that such a law might be unpopular with the general voting public. From a scientific point of view, how can this unpopularity be explained? (I admit that at this moment it's merely hypothetical unpopularity and not confirmed unpopularity.) Can the unpopularity be anything but an emotional response based on personal preferences, akin to a song that is commercially unsuccessful because it doesn't pander to popular tastes?

[caraher]

1. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

[Orsino]

2. All three. n/t

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Posteritatis]

6. Yankee Uniform Papa. (nt)

[Oregone]

3. Lets make the DU forum look like a bunch of jackasses post there

And we will do it with commie mustard on our browser

[Boojatta]

7. There is ...

a thread from January 2006 that makes it look as though people are deliberately posting on DU messages that are non-sequiturs and/or boojabberwockyish, depending on your point of view. Do you truly believe that jackass messages would be breaking new ground?

[NoNothing]

4. From a scientific point of view, how can this unpopularity be explained?

Explanation: people value individual rights over community welfare in some circumstances.

[FiveGoodMen]

9. "community welfare"?

How would punishing the wrong person contribute to community welfare?

[Boojatta]

10. That's a good question. I hope that we get an answer.

[Boojatta]

8. Kick

[Boojatta]

11. Kick

[Boojatta]

12. Link ...

... to another Science forum thread

[Boojatta]

13. Kick

[Boojatta]

14. Kick

[Orrex]

15. In college I dated a woman who was really good at gelato

Another thing that annoyed her was the kind of narcissist who kicks his or her own thread for the sheer "look at me" joy of it.

[Boojatta]

17. How can you demonstrate that "look at me" isn't YOUR motive for posting in this thread?

I would prefer to be able to start threads with my username replaced by the word "Anonymous", provided that all DU members have the option of using a single click to use the exact same alternative username "Anonymous."

Do you really think that I'm not interested in the topic of the thread and that I merely chose to kick at random any thread that was created by me?

Didn't it occur to you that if there are intangibles of a mathematical kind, then there might be intangibles of an ethical kind, and that the mere fact that something is intangible cannot be the basis for ridiculing it, unless all intangibles (including mathematical ones) are to be ridiculed?

[qazplm]

16. This is an enigma, wrapped in a paradox

and covered in crazy sauce.

[Boojatta]

18. Kick

[Tuesday Afternoon]

19. is this Like the hanging of Mary Surrat because they could not find her son?

is this like the way evidence is made to fit the case?

[Boojatta]

20. You should take the original message of this thread at face value.

If you cannot imagine any train of thought that would motivate anybody to even think about a comparison between the injustice of the proposed policy at the beginning of this thread and a subjective preference in music, then you might want to read some of this thread from January 2006.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

21. well, given this sentence:

Proposed law: Deliberately punish one who is known to merely resemble a particular criminal.

I thought that I had taken the original message at face value. :shrug:

I would think that Mary Surrat is a good example of the proposed law.

[Boojatta]

22. If the law didn't exist at the time, then it couldn't have been applied.

What facts of the Mary Surrat case do you consider to be relevant here? The proposed law calls for punishment based on nothing but resemblance where it is known that the actually guilty party definitely isn't the punished person who resembles the guilty party. Isn't the Mary Surrat case about conspiracy, rather than mere superficial similarity in the outward appearances of two different people?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

23. are you saying that is a law that is currently being proposed?

I missed the link to that. I thought this was theoretical.

I would say that Mary resembled her son and therefore was held accountable.

I think there are some parallels to it.