Thursday, February 02, 2006
yes and no and no and no
i hate the vancouver rain. i cannot fuckin' say it enough. yesterday was perfectly horrorshow, and not at all in a good way (forgive the 'clockwork orange' references). fucking rainstorm yesterday. winds of up to 50 km/h and it was 3 degrees and so dark and gray and gloomy (being wet wet wet with soaked shoes, soaked socks, socked jeans *damned wind* and hair), and it felt like -4 degrees... GOD. times like this you really do wish you were back in singapore. weather's a bitch in sg, but it's a predictable bitch, and you're usually hot and sweaty and irritable. here, cold and dark and wet makes you fucking miserable. perfect weather to commit suicide. seriously.
but not tt i am complaining tt much. not now, at least. the sun came out this morning. well. it played hide-and-seek again. by afternoon it was dark and raining all the way to evening and night, but yeah. we saw the sun. managed to rush a run in before the weather turned. can't believe i am so fucking dictated by the weather. GRRAAARRRGGGHHH. oh. and apparently it was so cold yesterday tt the rainstorm left SNOW on the ground.
but weather aside, it was all good. i've been spending an inordinate amount of time with ben and diana. met ben for lunch at totem yesterday before our fundamentalism class with steve wrexler, ben's fave person. wanted to contact diana but silly woman was uncontactable. woman you have MSN. when in room, use it! there's no other way to get you!!!
we were at fundamentals pretty early. which was good. i managed to get a seat tt was NOT next to wrexler for the first time in 2 weeks. thank god. everytime he launches into his reading of merryman (and i'm talking abt tt damned civil law tradition book written by john merryman tt gary bell made us read last year) and expouses on the beauty of the words used in the paragraphs like "so" and "this", i have to try SO HARD to stop from guffawing. he's been doing this for 4 straight lessons already, and it doesn't seem like he's going to stop!
diana wasn't so lucky tho. she came in 15 min late, and when she peeked her head round the corner wearing tt beanie with the 2 tails hanging down the sides, it was just SO SO cute! not tt she missed much. we never do. wrexler was just going through possible paper topics and stuff. and i can't remember which question he'd asked himself, to which he quoted aristotle and gave this answer:
"yes and no and no and no."
the idea being tt something may be the same as, as well as the opposite, of something else. and not just direct opposites, but also other types of opposites.
i.e. up. up is the same as up (yes). down is opposite of up (no). and left (no) and right (no) are also opposites of up if you look at it from different angles.
and from then on he answered EVERY FUCKING QUESTION with "yes and no and no and no".
the lesson, though almost completely mentally-unstimulating, was highly entertaining. mainly due to the fact tt ben, who really could take it no more, finally raised his objections when wrexler read from the book and stated tt in france, everyone was under the same law, but not in canada. to which ben asked, "how is tt so?"
to which wrexler explained tt different provinces had different laws. to which ben asked "why?" because different provinces in france also had different laws. and like france, provinces in canada were still subject to the authority of the federal justice system.
well. i can't remember what was being said after tt because everyone seemed to be confusing everyone, particularly wrexler himself. but all i know is tt wrexler seemed to be getting angrier and angrier with ben, and it was obvious tt ben was just antagonising our tutor.
it was very very funny. i was laughing almost hysterically. mainly coz i SWEAR i could see wrexler turning a visible shade of red as he tried to answer every one of ben's "but why?"s. and ben had a lot of them.
it seems tt every lesson tt we have with wrexler, ben never fails to antagonise him.
after the entertaining lesson, we stopped by the sub to get starbucks coffee (fuck. i have long since abandoned my boycott on starbucks. probably because like the government, they are *everywhere*). then me and diana went back to totem coz i'd decided to abandon my original intention of running and change into warmer clothes.
we met ben for dinner at our 2nd fave hangout (1st is the lib discussion room) - the chinese restaurant at the village - again, where we had dim sum dinner. har kau, siew mai, lo mai kai, xiao long bao, and the green onion pastry. and then it was to our 1st fave hangout - the library - to "study" till 11pm, when it closed.
but really. for all the time we spend at the lib, we *don't* study. we just PRETEND to. all i did last night was download songs to my itunes, ka chiao people on msn, and have a very heated 3-way discussion with ben about the death penalty. he believed tt it should be completely abolished, while i and diana believe tt it should be abolished for kidnapping and drugs, but not for murder. plus the current topic tt i am preparing for my psychology and litigation module is on false confessions, which are confessions whereby innocent suspects admit to crimes tt they do not admit under police inducement.
basically the research material tt i am studying is taken from the states, where there is a percentage of people who are wrongfully arrested, convicted, incarcerated and even executed (1 known case in the past 30 years) for crimes tt they did not commit. there are 3 main types of false confessions - voluntary confessions made by people who either seek to protect other people or have a pathological need for fame or acceptance or recognition; coerced-compliant confessions made by people who are vulnerable to social influence, and under the pressure of police inducement (i.e. long gruelling hours of interrogation (i.e. 13 straight hours in isolation), or minimization/maximisation techniques involving either promises of leniency with admittance of guilt or the threats of a harsher punishment with resistance); and coerced-internalised confessions made by people who are typically more vulnerable in terms of poor memory skills or a lack of assertiveness, who not only cave in to adverse pressure, but also COME TO BELIEVE that they HAVE committed the crime to which they have admitted, thus altering their own memories as to what has happened.
the problem with false confessions is tt while it is known tt it happens in the states, the full statistics are unknown, and fact remains tt even if such false confessions are realised to be false because of events happening like the finding of the real perpetrator, or the discovery of forensic evidence tt objectively exonerates the suspect, the thing is tt a false confession is highly incriminating, especially when the case goes to trial. even in cases where the evidence does NOT corroborate, or even contradicts the suspect's confession, and even where his confession does not fit any of the facts of the crimes at all, the rate of conviction on confessions by jurors is still 73%. and as a result, there have been people who have been jailed for periods from 2 weeks of pre-trial incarceration, to 8 years before they are released due to discovery of evidence to prove their innocence, to life where nothing has yet been done to help them, and yes. to their death as well. and there are even cases where a state district attorney has refused to re-open a murder case even on the finding of new evidence tt exonerates the suspect who made a false confession, because it will reflect badly on and attract negative media attention towards the criminal justice system.
i find such research highly disturbing. i know tt the research is still ongoing and incomplete, and some of the actions of the state police occur because they are maybe put under too much pressure to find a scapegoat for a major crime, or because they have become too personally involved in the case and have therefore going on their own gut feelings, decided to push for the prosecution of someone even inspite of contradictory evidence. there are so many factors to consider as to both sides, and although i feel tt too much emphasis is being placed on the individual here and not enough respect given to the police and the authorities (inherent bias. can you blame me? heh), a part of me still worries.
what about singapore? yes. we have no cries of injustice, no protests against the criminal justice system. we more or less accept whatever is being done in return for our safety and our right to walk the streets at night. but at the same time... doesn't it ever strike anyone? there is NO SUCH THING as a flawless criminal justice system. the system is made up of people, and people make mistakes. safeguards may be put in place to reduce errors, but still... doesn't anyone ever wonder? especially in sg where so many crimes are strict liability, or where the death penalty is mandatory for crimes like murder, kidnapping and drug trafficking.
today we met ben for lunch, and then another "study" session at our fave hang-out again. diana got a lot of work done. me and ben were just being pirates and trying (unsuccessfully) to log on to msn just so tt we could ka chiao pple on our msn list (and each other. i think we totally traumatised diana between the 2 of us today). but during the "go-grab-coffee" session (which became a 1 and a half hour talk cock session) with ben, we were discussing what i had been reading, among a lot of other things. and ben brought up the took case again. tt the evidence didn't entirely corroborate his confession. i noted tt he was able to lead the police to where huang na's body had been buried, which to me is proof tt he at least buried her and stuff.
but things like his sexual assault on her - there were no injuries or tears to prove tt he had sexually assaulted her; his suffocation of her by placing his hands over her nose and mouth - there were no bruises to indicate tt. the "beyond a reasonable doubt" question is raised again. sigh. fortunately huang na was not the only thing we talked abt. involved a lot of other things. ben is very insightful. in addition to him being my walking bank (heh heh heh), he should also be my encyclopedia. don't know anything can ask him one. *evil grin*
oh, and tonight we had dinner at our 2nd fave hang out again - the auntie gave us more food! we are becoming her fave customers, i bet! - and then we had to go to starbucks to buy this pink waterbottle for either joann, alvin or simin. i'm still not sure who it's for tho.
oh well. and thus sums up my past 2 days. yar, not very interesting, i know. but thing about vancouver is tt if you want to DO STUFF, you *really* have to go somewhere. like whistler to snowboard, or seattle to travel. or something like tt. vancouver itself isn't really tt compelling, at least NOT when it's cold and grey and rainy. if it were sunny i would love to go out all the time.
but it's NOT you see. fucking not. so yeah. next to decomposing in our rooms, meeting up to "study" (yeah, RIGHT!) in the lib is like the best thing we can do.
wahaha. we are such losers. heh heh heh.
now playing: hotel costes - cafe de flor
but not tt i am complaining tt much. not now, at least. the sun came out this morning. well. it played hide-and-seek again. by afternoon it was dark and raining all the way to evening and night, but yeah. we saw the sun. managed to rush a run in before the weather turned. can't believe i am so fucking dictated by the weather. GRRAAARRRGGGHHH. oh. and apparently it was so cold yesterday tt the rainstorm left SNOW on the ground.
but weather aside, it was all good. i've been spending an inordinate amount of time with ben and diana. met ben for lunch at totem yesterday before our fundamentalism class with steve wrexler, ben's fave person. wanted to contact diana but silly woman was uncontactable. woman you have MSN. when in room, use it! there's no other way to get you!!!
we were at fundamentals pretty early. which was good. i managed to get a seat tt was NOT next to wrexler for the first time in 2 weeks. thank god. everytime he launches into his reading of merryman (and i'm talking abt tt damned civil law tradition book written by john merryman tt gary bell made us read last year) and expouses on the beauty of the words used in the paragraphs like "so" and "this", i have to try SO HARD to stop from guffawing. he's been doing this for 4 straight lessons already, and it doesn't seem like he's going to stop!
diana wasn't so lucky tho. she came in 15 min late, and when she peeked her head round the corner wearing tt beanie with the 2 tails hanging down the sides, it was just SO SO cute! not tt she missed much. we never do. wrexler was just going through possible paper topics and stuff. and i can't remember which question he'd asked himself, to which he quoted aristotle and gave this answer:
"yes and no and no and no."
the idea being tt something may be the same as, as well as the opposite, of something else. and not just direct opposites, but also other types of opposites.
i.e. up. up is the same as up (yes). down is opposite of up (no). and left (no) and right (no) are also opposites of up if you look at it from different angles.
and from then on he answered EVERY FUCKING QUESTION with "yes and no and no and no".
the lesson, though almost completely mentally-unstimulating, was highly entertaining. mainly due to the fact tt ben, who really could take it no more, finally raised his objections when wrexler read from the book and stated tt in france, everyone was under the same law, but not in canada. to which ben asked, "how is tt so?"
to which wrexler explained tt different provinces had different laws. to which ben asked "why?" because different provinces in france also had different laws. and like france, provinces in canada were still subject to the authority of the federal justice system.
well. i can't remember what was being said after tt because everyone seemed to be confusing everyone, particularly wrexler himself. but all i know is tt wrexler seemed to be getting angrier and angrier with ben, and it was obvious tt ben was just antagonising our tutor.
it was very very funny. i was laughing almost hysterically. mainly coz i SWEAR i could see wrexler turning a visible shade of red as he tried to answer every one of ben's "but why?"s. and ben had a lot of them.
it seems tt every lesson tt we have with wrexler, ben never fails to antagonise him.
after the entertaining lesson, we stopped by the sub to get starbucks coffee (fuck. i have long since abandoned my boycott on starbucks. probably because like the government, they are *everywhere*). then me and diana went back to totem coz i'd decided to abandon my original intention of running and change into warmer clothes.
we met ben for dinner at our 2nd fave hangout (1st is the lib discussion room) - the chinese restaurant at the village - again, where we had dim sum dinner. har kau, siew mai, lo mai kai, xiao long bao, and the green onion pastry. and then it was to our 1st fave hangout - the library - to "study" till 11pm, when it closed.
but really. for all the time we spend at the lib, we *don't* study. we just PRETEND to. all i did last night was download songs to my itunes, ka chiao people on msn, and have a very heated 3-way discussion with ben about the death penalty. he believed tt it should be completely abolished, while i and diana believe tt it should be abolished for kidnapping and drugs, but not for murder. plus the current topic tt i am preparing for my psychology and litigation module is on false confessions, which are confessions whereby innocent suspects admit to crimes tt they do not admit under police inducement.
basically the research material tt i am studying is taken from the states, where there is a percentage of people who are wrongfully arrested, convicted, incarcerated and even executed (1 known case in the past 30 years) for crimes tt they did not commit. there are 3 main types of false confessions - voluntary confessions made by people who either seek to protect other people or have a pathological need for fame or acceptance or recognition; coerced-compliant confessions made by people who are vulnerable to social influence, and under the pressure of police inducement (i.e. long gruelling hours of interrogation (i.e. 13 straight hours in isolation), or minimization/maximisation techniques involving either promises of leniency with admittance of guilt or the threats of a harsher punishment with resistance); and coerced-internalised confessions made by people who are typically more vulnerable in terms of poor memory skills or a lack of assertiveness, who not only cave in to adverse pressure, but also COME TO BELIEVE that they HAVE committed the crime to which they have admitted, thus altering their own memories as to what has happened.
the problem with false confessions is tt while it is known tt it happens in the states, the full statistics are unknown, and fact remains tt even if such false confessions are realised to be false because of events happening like the finding of the real perpetrator, or the discovery of forensic evidence tt objectively exonerates the suspect, the thing is tt a false confession is highly incriminating, especially when the case goes to trial. even in cases where the evidence does NOT corroborate, or even contradicts the suspect's confession, and even where his confession does not fit any of the facts of the crimes at all, the rate of conviction on confessions by jurors is still 73%. and as a result, there have been people who have been jailed for periods from 2 weeks of pre-trial incarceration, to 8 years before they are released due to discovery of evidence to prove their innocence, to life where nothing has yet been done to help them, and yes. to their death as well. and there are even cases where a state district attorney has refused to re-open a murder case even on the finding of new evidence tt exonerates the suspect who made a false confession, because it will reflect badly on and attract negative media attention towards the criminal justice system.
i find such research highly disturbing. i know tt the research is still ongoing and incomplete, and some of the actions of the state police occur because they are maybe put under too much pressure to find a scapegoat for a major crime, or because they have become too personally involved in the case and have therefore going on their own gut feelings, decided to push for the prosecution of someone even inspite of contradictory evidence. there are so many factors to consider as to both sides, and although i feel tt too much emphasis is being placed on the individual here and not enough respect given to the police and the authorities (inherent bias. can you blame me? heh), a part of me still worries.
what about singapore? yes. we have no cries of injustice, no protests against the criminal justice system. we more or less accept whatever is being done in return for our safety and our right to walk the streets at night. but at the same time... doesn't it ever strike anyone? there is NO SUCH THING as a flawless criminal justice system. the system is made up of people, and people make mistakes. safeguards may be put in place to reduce errors, but still... doesn't anyone ever wonder? especially in sg where so many crimes are strict liability, or where the death penalty is mandatory for crimes like murder, kidnapping and drug trafficking.
today we met ben for lunch, and then another "study" session at our fave hang-out again. diana got a lot of work done. me and ben were just being pirates and trying (unsuccessfully) to log on to msn just so tt we could ka chiao pple on our msn list (and each other. i think we totally traumatised diana between the 2 of us today). but during the "go-grab-coffee" session (which became a 1 and a half hour talk cock session) with ben, we were discussing what i had been reading, among a lot of other things. and ben brought up the took case again. tt the evidence didn't entirely corroborate his confession. i noted tt he was able to lead the police to where huang na's body had been buried, which to me is proof tt he at least buried her and stuff.
but things like his sexual assault on her - there were no injuries or tears to prove tt he had sexually assaulted her; his suffocation of her by placing his hands over her nose and mouth - there were no bruises to indicate tt. the "beyond a reasonable doubt" question is raised again. sigh. fortunately huang na was not the only thing we talked abt. involved a lot of other things. ben is very insightful. in addition to him being my walking bank (heh heh heh), he should also be my encyclopedia. don't know anything can ask him one. *evil grin*
oh, and tonight we had dinner at our 2nd fave hang out again - the auntie gave us more food! we are becoming her fave customers, i bet! - and then we had to go to starbucks to buy this pink waterbottle for either joann, alvin or simin. i'm still not sure who it's for tho.
oh well. and thus sums up my past 2 days. yar, not very interesting, i know. but thing about vancouver is tt if you want to DO STUFF, you *really* have to go somewhere. like whistler to snowboard, or seattle to travel. or something like tt. vancouver itself isn't really tt compelling, at least NOT when it's cold and grey and rainy. if it were sunny i would love to go out all the time.
but it's NOT you see. fucking not. so yeah. next to decomposing in our rooms, meeting up to "study" (yeah, RIGHT!) in the lib is like the best thing we can do.
wahaha. we are such losers. heh heh heh.
# posted by Kitana @ 2/02/2006 03:10:00 PM 
