Harley Breite

[SuperTed]

He came across really well during that interview. It was also good to see him teach the black children that they have to take responsibility for their own lives, rather then adopt a victim mentality and blame their failures on a "racist" society.
However, he seems to think that the young delinquents are capable of being as smart and as successful as he is.
Does he really believe this or is it just words of encouragement? 

[tres_taco_combo]

DID HE POST HERE?

[Taffin]

DID HE POST HERE?

Oh yes.  Hope you've got nothing else to do this weekend 

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=578368.0

[SF1900]

Let me start off by saying that:

1) My moral relativisim is just that. I am a product of my own history, which includes beliefs, ideals, and values.
2) I recognize that everyone will have a different opinion on this matter.
3) I recognize that I could be flat out wrong regarding certain assumptions, given that prison/jail system and the medical industry are not my area of expertise.
4) I am willing to learn.

Depends on the setting.  If you're a doctor/surgeon that works for a city's correctional facilities, then yes, everyone who you treat or operate on will have a criminal record, does this mean that these doctors/surgeons are without morals and disgusting, because they chose to work for the city's correctional facilities where they would be catering to the worst humanity has to offer?

No, I do not think these doctors are more reprehensible. The primary reason being is that after they treat the inmate, he/she, for the most part, will still remain in custody, unable to harm innocent civilians. Of course, there may come a day when the person is released and harms someone else. But, I think that is more of a failure (or success--if you're Harley and get them off) of the criminal justice system when compared to the actions of the doctor. The end result of a prisoner being released or "let off" is (often) solely the product of the criminal justice. The doctor has no say in whether or not the criminal will re-enter society (unless it's a Forensic case and a Forensic Psychologist is called in to testify). So, really, it has to do the with the end goal: the end goal of a doctor is to save lives--the end goal of the criminal justice is to incarcerate/release prisoners (ad hopefully rehabilitate). When a child molester is let free on a technicality, and goes and abuses another child, I blame the criminal justice system (lawyers, judges, etc.), not the medical doctor who treated him for the flu 6 months ago.

Not to mention that if you have ever spent enough time within any of New York's city hospitals (think Bellevue, Elmhurst, Kings County, Woodhull etc), you'll notice that a reasonable percentage of patients that are brought in are actually brought in by the Police Department and are usually handcuffed to the bed while awaiting treatment. In any of these cases, the doctor/surgeon who provides these clients with treatment, be it lifesaving surgery or regular medical care, knows very well that they are treating a criminal. Does treating these criminals substantiate them as being people without morals and absolutely disgusting? Or does it simply suggest that they are good at a role and enjoy tackling cases that are difficult with an added twist (the criminality aspect of it)? Remember, these doctors/surgeons can legally refuse to treat these patients by claiming that they fear the interference of their emotions in the treatment of the patient.

I think my above answers sort of answers the above statement. No, I do not think they are reprehensible because it is is not their duty to either incarcerate or let free convicted killers, rapists, or sex offenders. It's been proven time and time again that the criminal justice is pretty much a "revolving door" for criminals--you have child molesters barely doing any time in jail. While the medical industry also has it's problems, its sole purpose is not to incarcerate/let free a criminal. When that occurs, the burden simply falls on the criminal justice system.

I guess what I am trying to figure out is why you would see Harley as morally reprehensible and disgusting due to his wanting to perform his job by serving people that are morally bankrupt. I am not a close friend of Harley, nor have I ever met him in person, but I do like to try and understand what mechanisms people use when casting judgment upon others. I know you probably have a load of psychological reasons, hence why I specifically ask you (you're more prepared to answer than most).

As Dave D, perhaps some of it has to to do with the fact that Harley stated that he has no problem defending a child molester, but will not defend an animal abuser. When I read this, I had an instinctual gut reaction to this. According to Social Psychologist, Jonathan Haidt at NYU, we often make moral decisions based on "instinctual gut reactions." Afterwards, we then seek evidence to confirm our instinctual gut reaction (not the best way to go about forming a value judgment, but we are human--humans, by nature, are biased creates--we form values based on cognitive heuristics and limited experiences). To a great extent, my reaction was very instinctual. Of course, given my own history, I do find that morally reprehensible, but of course it does not indicate an objective stance. Further, we all exhibit transferential and countertransferential reactions to others--perhaps there is something about Harley that triggers me. Would I be this disgusted by another criminal defense lawyer? Maybe, maybe not.

I have many friends that practice criminal law. They seem like good people from where I sit. They participate in their communities, usually have good families ties and try their best to be helpful to others. Maybe there is more to them than I am able to see. Maybe they have a dark side that might be in line with what you possibly see in Harley. In any case, I just wanted to know what thought process led you to labeling Harley as someone that is disgusting and without morals.

They may be experiencing some level of cognitive dissonance after getting off a child molester--but perhaps the money helps.

Due to the pony tail, I can understand if you find him fashionably reprehensible, but the rest, I am not sure.

Is ponytail is reprehensible.

Again, these are just MY assumptions based on my own history.

[SF1900]

So what if the doctor DID happen to know he was saving a pedophile?

Again, I think its all about the end goal.

The doctors end goal is to save a life.

The criminal justice systems end goal is to keep the public safe.

When a child molester is released after 6 months on some technicality, I blame the actions of the criminal justice system, not the doctor.

Again, as I said above to OMR, I am not an expert on prison or the medical industry, and recognize my biases.