Crow's Paradise

"Then I was fired."

Skull Split's voice is quite steady. If you don't consider his subject, you would even think that these things have nothing to do with him:

"I was very unwilling, so I exposed this matter and spread it."

"Then I died."

There were no emotional ups and downs when describing his own death.

Regarding his description, Black Wrist was obviously a little depressed.

But Black Arm's feeling of contempt became more and more obvious.

He even revealed his attitude clearly without any cover-up——

"You died because of this, but you still have to defend it?"

"It turns out that what you want to defend, kills you, your justice kills you."

Well, that's great. You acted for justice and were killed by someone who was hostile to you, so it was you who died because of your justice, and then it became "your justice killed you."

This change of speech is too vulgar.

During his lifetime, the more popular description was "delayed justice is not justice".

Although the original sentence expresses the meaning that "even if the judicial result is just, 'delaying' the process itself is a denial of justice."

What is wrong is "delay", because delay brings harm to the victims in the trial, which is an injustice in itself and also damages the credibility of the trial institution.

In Yao Yan's memory, he often saw people reading this phrase to support the abolition of the death penalty.

Because someone could be harmed or even an innocent person killed because of such a judicial error, the death penalty should be abolished.

This move is called point arrancar.

From the possibility of abolishing the death penalty because someone was killed in an error of justice.

However, if you think about it carefully, to solve judicial errors, shouldn’t we go in the direction of strengthening management and reducing judicial errors? Why abolition of the death penalty?

Some people will answer, because if the death penalty is imposed, the innocent person will die. If not, he may wait until the day of judicial clarification.

So, why not go in the direction of “why justice goes wrong”?

Wouldn't it be more effective to take the approach of "cases involving the death penalty are repeated and cross-tried by multiple courts"?

"Because it can't be done."

So why do you think “abolition of the death penalty” can be achieved?

Perspective shift.

Everyone has a perspective on thinking.

When thinking about a problem, there must be a perspective that serves as a symbol and a position.

By exaggerating the victimization of innocent people, the perspective of public opinion stakeholders is guided to the innocent people.

People naturally have sympathy for innocent victims.

At this time, "protection" will become the core point.

Protecting the innocent will become the first priority for these people to judge the weight.

Perspective affects the weight of judgment.

The core of playing with public opinion is to influence people's judgment, and the most secret way to influence people's judgment is to influence the weight.

Directly giving false information is certainly a method, but it also has major shortcomings and can be easily seen through.

Some people will say at this time, isn't this a restriction of legal power? How did it become public opinion?

This point is somewhat related to the legal principles discussed just now.

Regarding the legitimacy of a country's rule, there is a school called "social contract theory."

There are many classifications within this genre itself, many of which are in conflict with and hostile to each other.

One of the most familiar to Yao Yan is the core discussion of the sources of legitimacy of the state:

Citizens transfer some of their rights and interests in exchange for something.

Social peace and stability, personal safety, infrastructure construction, property rights, etc.

Based on the concept of "social contract", law itself has two properties, and one of them is a restriction on public power——

Limit situations like the feudal era where emperors could deprive and liberate the lives of prisoners and even non-criminals based on their personal desires.

The very existence of law - must be enforced according to its terms.

A double-edged sword cuts at criminals as well as public power.

Yao Yan often heard words like this:

"Those who hold power will hope that the power will be as strong as possible, and the punishment for crimes will be as low as possible, so as to leave a way out for possible crimes."

Sounds okay?

If you just listen to this sentence, there is no problem.

So, the question is, when you hear this sentence, what are the opposing parties in your analysis and judgment?

What's the point?

Power and crime are linked.

The point of retaining the death penalty is to reduce power.

Is there something wrong?

So, if what Yao Yan is thinking now were presented to another person, would he instinctively think that "this person is whitewashing power"?

This is one way to influence perspective.

The weight of people's judgments will be affected by their own perspective.

Something very important, overlooked.

People's simple understanding of justice and fairness - blood for blood, tooth for tooth, those who commit crimes and violate fairness must be punished and punished.

This double-edged sword has struck a blow at public power, and at the same time a blow at this simple understanding of justice.

Evil deeds cannot be punished with death as revenge.

The concept of retribution, the concept of morality, is also damaged here.

However, when the perspective is shifted, people are not aware of the problem.

Moreover, people's perspective itself will also be affected by "perspective limitations".

Even Yao Yan's expression is "not only look at this kind, but also look at the other kind".

However, when people are simplifying the mechanism, and when the perspective of receiving information is limited, they will subconsciously form priorities, resulting in "he thinks xx is not important" or even "he thinks xx is not guilty."

This is the core of the conflict between idealism and realism.

Making people completely rational is something that can never be accomplished in practice.

Why?

Because, after seeing this sentence, some people will have thoughts like "I am considered irrational" or "I am being attacked."

The body's instinct is irresistible.

Even if negative feedback can be adjusted through logical thinking formed by experience and suppressed and neutralized in the judgment stage, it cannot prevent its occurrence.

It cannot be solved from the root cause.

And as long as the root cause cannot be solved, it can be exploited.

As long as these sentences from Yao Yan are intercepted and omitted, people can have different perceptions and can be exploited.

Thinking of this, Yao Yan couldn't help but think again——

Where can I obtain [quoted out of context] this rumor-mongering general?

Speaking of which, if someone can see Yao Yan's thinking process, has he discovered it?

The topic has been changed.

The perspective has been shifted.

Using relevant [association] and [curiosity] as a tool to change the topic is a rather blunt and crude method, but it is very effective.

Obtaining information itself is a way to guide thinking.

As long as there is the act of reading and the act of receiving information, this act itself is a shift in perspective.

Yao Yan looked up at the sky.

If there are individuals or groups who can directly observe Yao Yan's thinking or determine his thinking, then their observation itself will also affect these observers.

Does this world have a will?

There was no response, and the sky was shrouded in fog.

Yao Yan's eyes also turned to Black Arm.

He was already roughly certain——

Black Arm has been influenced by social contract theory or derivative theories or works of social contract theory.

If Black Arm is a person from the era of Yao Yan's lifetime, then Yao Yan can lock in his era based on this.

But here, he could only draw valid information related to history that he had been affected.

ps: Haha, how is it? Did you not notice that the perspective was shifted before pointing it out?

Did you remember that the topic was about the black arm experience at the beginning?