"Then, I was fired."

The sound of the cleft skull is quite stable. If you don’t consider his subject, you will even feel that these things have nothing to do with him:

"I'm very unwilling to accept it, so I exposed it and spread it."

"Then, I'm dead."

When describing one's death, there are no emotional ups and downs.

As for his description, Black Wrist's mood was obviously a little depressed.

But the black arm's feeling of contempt became more and more obvious.

He even made no secret of his attitude.

"Die because of this, but you still need to maintain it?"

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

Well, it's great, you act for justice and are killed by people who are hostile to you, so you die because of your justice and then become "your justice kills you".

This kind of speech change is too low-level.

In his lifetime, the more popular way of describing "belated justice is not justice".

Although the original sentence means "even if the result of justice is fair, the process of 'delay' itself is a negation of justice."

The mistake is "delay", because delay brings harm to the victims in the trial, which is in itself an injustice and also a kind of credibility to the judicial institution.

In Yao Yan's memory, he often saw people supporting the abolition of the death penalty by reading this rhetoric.

Because some people may be harmed by such judicial errors, or even innocent people are killed, the death penalty should be abolished.

This trick is called breaking the surface with a point.

The death penalty may be abolished because someone was killed in judicial errors.

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

Someone will answer, because if the death penalty is imposed, the innocent will die. If it is not, then it may be until the day when the judicial clarification is made.

So, why not go in the direction of "why judicial errors"?

Isn’t it more effective to follow the approach of “cases involving the death penalty, repeated by multiple courts and cross-trial”?

"Because I can't do it."

So why do you think that "abolition of the death penalty" can be done?

Perspective transformation.

People have a perspective on thinking.

When thinking about a problem, you must have a perspective as a marker and as a site.

By exaggerating the victimization of innocent people, we will guide the perspective of the relevant public opinion to the innocent people.

People will naturally have sympathy for innocent victims.

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

Protecting innocent people will become the first priority in these people's judgment of weight.

Perspective, affects judgment weight.

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 weight.

Giving false information directly is certainly a method, but its disadvantages are also great and easy to be seen.

Some people will say at this time that this is not a restriction on legal power? How did it become public opinion?

This is related to the legal theory just now.

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

There are many categories within this genre itself, and many conflicting and hostile ones are also there.

One of the most familiar ones Yao Yan is the source of legitimacy of the core discussion of the country:

Citizens give up part of their rights and interests in exchange for something.

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

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

Restricting the situation in which emperors could deprive and liberate prisoners and even non-criminals with their personal desires.

The existence of the law itself - must be enforced in accordance with the terms of the law.

A double-edged sword cuts at the criminals and also at the public power.

Yao Yan often hears words like this:

"People who hold powerful power will hope that the stronger the power, the better, and hope that the lower the punishment for crime, and leave a way out for their possible crimes."

Doesn't it sound like nothing wrong?

There is no problem just listening to this sentence.

So, the question is here. When you hear this sentence, what are the opposite cubes in your analysis and judgment?

What is the point?

Power and crime are hooked.

The key to retaining the death penalty is to weaken power.

Is there something wrong?

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

This is a way to influence perspective.

People's judgment weight will be influenced by their own perspective.

A very important thing is ignored.

People have a simple understanding of justice and fairness - those who commit crimes and violate fairness will be punished and punished.

This double-edged sword cut off the public power and also cut off the simple understanding of justice.

For evil deeds, revenge on death cannot be punished.

The concept of retribution and moral concepts are 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 “limited perspectives”.

Even Yao Yan’s expression is “not only one, but also another.”

However, when people simplify the mechanism and, when the perspective of receiving information is limited, they will subconsciously form the primary and secondary, thus producing "he thinks xx is not important" or even "he thinks xx is innocent".

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, seeing this sentence, someone will have the idea of ​​"I am considered irrational" and "I am attacked".

The body's instinct is irresistible.

Even if the logical thinking formed by experience can be adjusted negative feedback and suppress and neutralize in the judgment stage, it cannot be restrained from its generation.

Can't be solved from the root.

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

These sentences of Yao Yan can be intercepted and omitted, and can be used to create different views.

Thinking of this, Yao Yan couldn't help but think about it again-

Where can I get the general who created the rumor [taken out of context]?

Speaking of this, if anyone can see Yao Yan’s thinking process, then have you discovered it?

The topic has been shifted.

The perspective has been shifted.

Although it is a very stiff and rough way to transfer topics through the correlation [association] and [curiosity], it is very effective.

The acquisition of information itself is a way for thinking to be guided.

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

Yao Yan looked up at the sky.

If there is anything that can directly observe Yao Yan's thinking or determine his thinking, then their observations themselves will also affect these observers.

Does this world have will?

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

Yao Yan's eyes also turned to Black Arm.

He can roughly confirm—

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

If Black Arm was from Yao Yan's time during his lifetime, then Yao Yan can lock in his time based on this point.

But here, he can only obtain effective information related to history that has been affected.

ps: Haha, how about it? Didn’t you notice that the perspective was transferred before pointing out?
Chapter completed!