Massive Demand to
Lock Up the Innocent
in a Democracy
Florida Supreme Court
Innocence Commission
Embarrassing Charade
The Myth That
Burns Our Cities
Mock Trials and the
Common Mediocrity
of History
Coerced Jailhouse
Confession Witness
Satanic Scam
New York Police
and Justice Reforms
Legislative Concepts
and Proposals
Attorney General
William Barr is a
Sick Retard
Debating with the
Law-and-Order Mob
Letters to my
Justice without Fraud
Challenge to Republicans
Running for Office
Voters Give Police
A Mandate To Lie
Republican Cop Cult
Disconnects from Reality
Mass Incarceration
Worse than Immigration
for Republicans
2020 Election
Newt Gingrich
Republican Fossils
Timeline of Destruction
of the Republican Party
Criminal Guilt
Determined Socially
Guilty Until
Proven Innocent
Quick History of
Police Misconduct
Intellectual Dishonesty
In Defense of Perjury
Is A Vice
Real Justice
Crosley Green
Common Cause of
False Convictions
Embarrassed Cop Setup
John Alberto Torres
Supports Replacing
Juries With Politicians
False Prophet
Ann Coulter
Sheriff Wayne Ivey's
Political Activism
and Ideology
Jailhouse Witnesses
Release Two
To Convict One
T-Shirt Artwork
Contact Info
About Site



Criminal Guilt Determined Socially

What if being accused of a crime were like being a Republican? Would Republicans consider government employees giving people life sentences a utopian solution? Yes, everyone should have a nice house, and every criminal should be in prison.

When I was a kid in the 1990's, I used to play poker for a living. Poker is a game designed to have just enough randomness, to hide from bad players that they are losing money. Suppose bad players sat down and on the first hand you took a third of their money, and another third on the next hand, and then the last of it on the next hand. They would never come back. It is only by letting them sometimes win hands, and going through a lot of uncertainty, that they are encouraged with the false belief that they can make some money. A bad player who gets lucky and draws out a couple flushes on his first day, will come back and lose money for years, based on the false impression he got that first day.

Republicans are lucky enough to go up against liberals who are totally disconnected from reality. In most policy preferences, the outcome of bad left-wing policies is camouflaged from them, like in poker. They say global warming is killing the planet. But like in poker, some summers are up, some are down, so they are free to believe they are right. When they raised the minimum wage in Puerto Rico, they blamed unemployment on hurricanes. In North Korea they blame famine on a drought. So Republicans are very rare to pin the outcomes of their bad policies on squirming liberals.

One exception was crime. Back in the 1970's, liberals said crime could be cured not by locking up people who don't obey the law, but through rehabilitation and addressing root causes. Liberals were wrong, crime went up, and Republicans proved it. Republicans said lock up people who break the law and crime will go down, and it did.

Republicans never forget that rare victory. Like a novice poker player who gets lucky and hits a straight flush, Republicans think they know something about the criminal justice system. They think they understand the jury system perfectly - juries always let everyone off - and they understand police perfectly - not racists and trying to do a good job. So like a poker player who remembers that time he won big, Republicans always try to come back to that same well, the crime issue. But what if Republicans don't understand the criminal justice system as well as they think they do? What if they are like the poker player who got lucky once and thinks he is good, and it leads them to come back and lose for years?

The criminal justice system is actually everything Republicans hate. It is a government institution, like the Post Office or DMV. For that reason, it is garbage and totally corruptible. Republicans' heroes, the Founding Fathers, knew this. Many of their Grievances in the Declaration of Independence were grievances about criminal justice. The Bill of Rights is written mainly to constrain police, on the belief that they are far from utopian. Like most government institutions such as universal healthcare, the Founders knew the outcome of criminal justice could be far from its advertised purpose.

Worse, criminal justice is supposed to be based on evidence. But like a political campaign against liberals, in real life it turns out to be a social process. Suppose a witness sees someone fall off a balcony. Then a policeman tells the witness the victim was shot. Now the witness will remember hearing a gunshot. Then the witness reads in the paper the victim was robbed. Suddenly the witness remembers someone saying "Hand over the wallet." Suppose a witness sees a picture of the accused in the newspaper. Suddenly he says "Yes, that is the guy I saw running away, I can identify him." So like running for office against liberals, a person accused of a crime is faced with an endless stream of garbage that people read in the paper and call evidence.

Republicans like to think a trial is this sort of scientific process, like in a mystery book or a crime TV show. But what if it is more like two political candidates, taking opposite positions? Don't people believe the liberal half the time, even though you know he is wrong? Jurors are pulled from voter registrations. In an off year, when Presidents usually lose Congress to the other party, it is not hard to get a juror pool composed entirely of voters who voted for one party or the other. When they vote for liberals, do they look at evidence, or do they just decide whom to believe based on his haircut? When they get into the jury box it is the same thing. They sleep through all the diagrams. And then they say well this guy is telling me this, this other guy is telling me this, I like the first guy, I believe the first guy.

Republicans say there are no false convictions. But then they say if you hang out in the wrong neighborhood, or with drug people, people are going to suspect you are a druggy too. So don't be surprised if you get convicted of a crime. So if someone is hanging out with the wrong people and someone gets shot, Republicans say sure, you might be falsely convicted of murder. Or if someone has a past drug arrest, they say don't be surprised if people think the worst, and believe the cop and not you.

So Republicans don't consider those to be false convictions. They consider those fair convictions because, even though you didn't do the crime you were convicted of, it is your own fault for being a bad person. So Republicans admit it is not an evidence process, it is a social process. People who think police have their best interests at heart like Democrats, and think heroin users are mean and evil like Republicans, will believe the cop. So like a liberal, the cop can lie and the accused has no chance. People would hate the cops as much as you hate running against Bill Clinton.

What if police and prosecutors were just as bad as liberals in every other institution of government. What if getting arrested were just like running against a liberal. Except the liberals could do what they really want, which is to put the people they don't like in prison. Imagine the millions of people that would alienate every year. Imagine the hatred people would have against a post office that kept people locked up in the back room, and lost them for weeks at a time, or forever. Imagine that was your family member locked up in the back of the post office, while you argued with the people at the front desk.

You say well it is like medicaid, only the dirtbags have to deal with it. It sucks for the criminals, as it should. Actually, it is more like NHS in Britain, universal healthcare. You have to pay for it. It is supposed to be locking up dangerous criminals to protect you, but it doesn't. It can easily falsely accuse you or your family member of something, and lock you up based purely on gossip, the impulse of the mob, like a political campaign. Do Republicans really want to push all their chips onto the table on a piece of garbage, that everyone who has actual experience with it hates? Because they won with it 50 years ago? Are Republicans this deluded to seek utopia through a government institution that locks up innocent people with the efficiency of the post office?

Republicans say if liberals don't like it, then we must like it. If criminals don't like it, then we must like it. In fact, we worship it. Just like Democrats suddenly love Mexican immigrants, because Trump hates them. So you push all your chips onto the table on something that sucks, and lose. Because you are totally deluded about what that thing actually is, and how it actually works.

For how many years will Republicans keep coming back to this criminal justice thing, like a bad poker player? What are they blaming their loss on today? George Soros interfered with the cards? Read this whole website, and find out how criminal justice really works in the United States.

Dr. Benjamin Braddock @GraduatedBen February 19, 2021 On Twitter: Myrna Opsahl was depositing money at the bank for her church. She was shot in the back and left to die by an SLA black power radical who only spent four years in jail for taking her life.

We don’t need to eliminate the death penalty, we need to expand it significantly.

If somebody died of cancer in 1975, does that mean we need to expand Obamacare significantly in 2021?

Why do Republicans, faced with political annihilation as a result of their pursuit of the utopia, blind themselves to the corruption and imperfection of government, only in this one area of criminal justice?

Republicans would never say someone starving automatically means we need more foodstamps, or any other non sequitur using every event to justify increased government power like liberals do. Snowstorm? We need more government control of industry to stop global warming.

So what is it about criminal justice? Criminal justice allows Republicans to lock down their base of people who want to shoot black people.

And liberals come back, and ignore the simplest problems and solutions and potential areas of improvement in criminal justice, and say criminal justice is a racial issue. We need to cure racism, we need to change human nature, to improve criminal justice. Neither side spends much time on justice for victims (who suffer greatly from imperfect criminal justice), separating guilty from innocent, or improving the process. Both sides spend all their time on the racial angle, which is what drives their voters.

"Mind Is Not a Guide, but a Product of Cultural Evolution, and Is Based More on Imitation than on Insight or Reason"

-Friedrich Hayek, "The Fatal Conceit"

This is why thousands of people who have never looked at the evidence, believe with confidence that Crosley Green was framed. This is how every single witness in Mandi May Jackson's trial lied, based on a collective belief in her guilt. I can offer people who have opinions of these cases plain evidence to contradict anything they believe, it doesn't matter. Both Mandi May Jackson's guilt, and Crosley Green's innocence, are the product of neither instinct or reason, but of imitation. Just like every other piece of human knowledge, as explained by Hayek.

Someone who looks at evidence to determine criminal guilt, is missing a large part of the process. Evidence is produced by humans to fit their preconceptions. It is not for nothing that drug trials are done double blind. Otherwise, the natural tendency of humans to repeat gossip, would replace any scientific discovery.

The evidence itself cannot persuade someone, such as in the case of Mandi May Jackson's innocence. It is who presents the evidence, and whether that person is previously given credibility and qualified for imitation, that determines whether the belief which claims to be supported by the evidence, is adopted. And if that person is given credibility for imitation, then he needs not even present any evidence. People will believe Crosley Green is innocent just because someone on TV said he is, and it fits their preconceptions.

And the evidence itself is determined by who is selected to produce the evidence, who is given credibility, and the beliefs of that group at the time they produce the evidence. Of course groups with competing and contradictory beliefs will produce contradictory evidence. So the evidence is a product of which group is assiged credibility to produce evidence, and the beliefs of that group.

Police who test a glove for DNA know where the glove was found, and know what belief different test results will support. So they will be religiously obligated to change where they say the glove was found, or even to avoid testing it, to synchronize any test result with their popular belief system. They will never let go of their collective belief, and will change any evidence necessary to fit it. As will witnesses change their stories. The evidence can be changed by how early in a criminal case competing narratives are disseminated and develop popularity.

Why is it wrong to have sex with your sister? I don't know. But I am 100% certain that it is wrong. People don't know things based on science. They know things based on imitation. That is how the production of evidence in a criminal case begins, with a collective or tribal belief held by police, copied from person to person. And then their evidence will primarily consist of idols constructed to manifest or reproduce or reinforce their previously held beliefs. It cannot be unique to Mandi May Jackson's case, it is human nature. Beliefs are a product of imitation, and evidence follows beliefs, not the other way around.

So any old criminal case where you look at the evidence, to see if you agree with the outcome based on the evidence, you are looking at the wrong process. You have to look at the beliefs of the parties who created the evidence, and how and when the beliefs were formed. Or if you are defending a criminal case at its beginning, the earlier and more widely you can disseminate your narrative, the more witnesses it will be supported by.

I have great evidence that Kim Hallock told the truth, and Crosley Green is guilty. I have evidence that every witness at Mandi May Jackson's trial lied. But that is irrelevant. In both cases, it is not a problem of evidence, but of religion.

It is not unique to crime. Half the population literally believes Donald Trump got more votes than Joe Biden, the other half believes Joe Biden got more votes. There is no role for evidence in religious imitation of beliefs. In both cases, the evidence is produced to support the beliefs. And changing people's beliefs is not a problem of persuading with evidence. It is, as Hitler taught, a problem of persuading with repetition.


Back in school, the best students were the best imitators. It doesn't matter why A squared plus B squared is C squared, it just is. This leaves the efficient human brain with a simpler problen to solve: Whom to imitate? Listen to everything your professor says, don't listen to anything mean Republicans say. Believe everything on left-wing Don't believe anything on right-wing How does the human brain solve this problem?

I lived on the California coast with my girlfriend, and we would go surfing all the time. She met some people and we went over to their house to hang out. Without realzing it, I had just walked into a San Francisco cocktail party. So we were standing around with a little circle of people talking with our cocktails, and I mentioned that I listened to Rush Limbaugh, and maybe that I disliked abortion or maybe something about policing or something.

The girl standing across from me got a weird look on her face. She said in sort of a hesitant sentence, like she was more thinking to herself than talking to anyone, "I think that... I am going to... have to stop talking to you... now." And she rotated stiffly in place, and walked away. She flipped a switch and turned me off, based on a shibboleth, more or less. I thought this is awesome, such a simple system.

When we were kids and personal computers first came out, there were text adventure games. They might say something like "You see a hole." So you would type "look hole." And the game would say "You fell in the hole and died." So we would write little programs to play a joke on our friend Jeff. My program would ask "What is your name?" And if the first letter the guy typed was "j" the program would say "You are an idiot." Then we would say hey Jeff, come over and try out this cool adventure game. Jeff would be leery and type "john" instead of his real name. And it would still work and say "You are an idiot."

So after the San Francisco cocktail party, I went home and made a little program that asked things like "Are dolphins good? Are guns good? Is abortion good?" And if you answered any question wrong, the program would say "I think I am going to have to stop talking to you, now." The program had a little list, dolphins good, guns bad, and so on. If you answered all the questions right, it would classify you as trusted, and start imitating you. So if the next thing you said is "murder is good", it would add that to its list, and imitate you. If the next person then said "murder is bad" it would say "I am going to have to stop talking to you, now."

Imitation is the most efficient way a human being can learn and become a productive and well-adjusted citizen. But it becomes a problem with the meme where people say black kids just need to comply with police, do exactly what they say, and the police won't shoot you. Because police are your adversaries. They literally want to ruin your life. This creates a conflict with the simple way human brains are designed to work. It creates a "Simon Says" game, that kids are going to lose.

Simon Says "stop"

Simon Says "put your hands on the hood"

Simon Says "spread your legs and put your hands behind your back"

Simon Says "take one step forward"

Simon Says "put your thumb on this inkpad"

Simon says "open your mouth"

Simon Says "sign here that you understand these rights I've just read you"

"just admit you were in the room when this guy shot this other guy, and you will make it much easier on yourself"

Simon Says "we are charging you with felony murder, and if you don't agree to testify you saw this guy shoot this other guy, you are getting life in prison"

The human brain is not really designed to operate based on reason, and discriminate between different instructions from the same person, as being both trusted and not trusted. It is designed to be cooperative or adversarial, and choose whom to be cooperative and adversarial with. Especially when you are "in custody", and you quickly learn to comply with every instruction or feel pain.

So you can say "black kids should comply, and stop when police say stop." But you can't then say "criminals would never confess to something they didn't do, and witnesses would never swear to seeing something they didn't see, just to be cooperative with police." Absolutely they would. An efficient productive well-adjusted human brain is programmed to recite or follow anything a cop says, just like the student with the best grades imitates his professor.

A student who disagrees with the professor fails, or gets shot. And so the majority of witness statements, and even confessions, are the product of imitation and cooperation, not fact or reason.

And then convictions are based on whether you trust police and distrust people with past drug arrests. Even if the cop tells you the sun is green. If the cop or the government employee says "this person is guilty" then you will say "guilty." Critical analysis of evidence and small details, play little part.

And Republicans are put in the awkward position of saying "cops who lie are good" and "people with past drug arrest who are falsely convicted of crimes are bad" and "people who don't like their family members being victimized by police are marxists." And "Trump won the election."

Being banned from Twitter is the best thing that could happen to Republicans.