John Beaderstadt wrote:
> I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item
> written by "Rhonda Lea Kirk" which said:
>
>> It doesn't matter who I like or who I want/don't want it
>> to be. Scapegoating is wrong. It's always wrong.
>
> Moral issues aside, it's wrong because it's worse than
> ineffective. It fails to solve the problem by allowing the
> perp to go free, while creating another problem by
> alienating or removing the scapegoat, who might
> otherwise be a valuable contributor to your society.
> It is also a strong indication that the rules of your
> society are insufficient to ensure the society's
> efficient operation.

I see it as a practical issue.

My daughter spent four months in jail for something she did
not do. She had just turned 18 when the incident leading to
her arrest occurred. She was blamed based on stereotyping of
the worst sort and lazy police work--numbers count these
days, it doesn't really matter who gets punished as long as
someone does. It may be that a jury would have believed
her--there was plenty of evidence of her innocence (and
stupidity, but that's another story)--but the risk of a
guilty verdict and 10 years in state prison was too much for
her to handle, and she took the plea agreement that was
offered.

No moral issue there that I can see.

> Sorry, Rhonda, but you forget that you're talking to
> scientists and engineers, here.

Using only the majority of the posts here as my guide, it's
a difficult concept to hold onto.

> "Human" issues, such as morality, need
> to be expressed in somewhat different terms.

Are the terms expressed above enough different to explain my
perspective on this?