Before I was in confuse state whether criminals also have the rights to do but after having study and talks on it I realize that yes they do have some rights, some human rights and social rights.
我研究的网站提供了这些信息。刑事司法和权利、法律等一切。现在是每个人进行新革命的时候了。我喜欢这个帖子。

Dawn French tells a cute joke:
A snail is mugged by a turtle. The police ask it to describe the assailant. The snail says: "I don't remember, it all happened so fast!"

The only person that can truly tell the future is the same person that can truly tell the past, and that is no One! =

在吉卜林的故事《金》中有一个场景，其中有一个记忆练习来证明这个困难。内存服务吗?它不是法医设备。陪审团制度最初是一个从村庄长老和利益相关方中选出的团体，代表受害者和被告，不是为了确定罪行，而是决定罪行的程度，并以一种旨在恢复和平的付款形式设立补救办法。大多数证人的证词并不像他们愿意说出他们非常熟悉的“肇事者”那样不可靠。但是，试图将记忆作为一种鉴定工具是徒劳的，也不是一个恰当的哲学问题。如果你曾在多年后参加过一次聚会，很容易就会发现，感官并不是认知的基础。什么是亲密关系。令人惊讶的是，我们如何分享彼此的性格，以及如何在几十年的隔阂之后，以一种新的熟人无法理解的方式认识彼此。通过我们在生活中认识的所有人，我们通过对方的性格认识了自己，这种清晰的意识令人震惊，我们可以记住我们与他们分享的惊人细节，甚至可以不重复同一个笑话。 This is an amazing achievement, but it is the case because memory does not serve as a forensic tool. But, nevertheless, it is that intimacy we can achieve in recognizing ourselves in each other that is the basis of the reputation of the eye witness in a court setting, going back to Anglo-Saxon law. On the other hand, the tradition of the detached observer of the modernist era is a farcical perversion of the facility we have to know and identify each other, and it combines perniciously with a tradition in which crime is the act of the stranger, the lower class or racial or colonial other, never to be recognized as 'one of us' in any case, and so never the certitude of intimate recognition and therefore relegated to 'objective' or forensic 'observation'. It is as legally unsound a judgment as it is a vapid philosophical issue.

As you have aptly demonstrated in your post, eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable for all the aforestated reasons. Additionally, people are as they are. They are notoriously biased, whether those biases are motivated by racial animosities, cultural disparities, language differences and/or other sociological characteristics that cause one group to dislike, disdain or distrust another. The record of our criminal justice system is checkered, at best, as an examination of convictions will readily reveal. Yet another damning factor is the difficulty encountered when facing a jury "of one's peers". This tried and true tool of jurisprudence is becoming more and more problematic. How, then, do we assemble such an impartial panel when facing the same sorts of discrepancies mentioned in the third sentence of this commentary? Moreover, perhaps, how do we fairly justify a jury of peers, if they truly are such and might therefore wish to set free a guilty member of their elite? I fondly recall a quotation from Karl Jaspers: Reality is an endless fabric of meaningful and meaningless factors. Oh the web we weave when first we practice to deceive!
Warmest,
Neuman.

The obsession with distinctions will be the undoing of philosophy if we suppose them the avenue to the holy grail of induction. The reason distinctions are of value is because, being reductive, they help us grasp the inductive sense of the end of that reduction in bringing us to recognize that the most encompassing term of reason is the lost antecedent, not its confirmation. That is, the law of the excluded middle is not validly axiomatic. If it were, we would not be able to reason at all. If A is B and B is C, the middle term, B, can hardly be excluded from our finding A is C! And yet, in the sense of that finding, B is neither! And Wen diagrams are no help. Even a strict Sorites always leaves something out. And so, the faculty of distinguishing one thing from another can never establish the meaning of our terms, and it is the loss of that faculty, as the most rigorous term of its reductive force, that is the engine and in a real sense the originary term of that meaning. And that is the holy grail so elusive to a mind insensible to the loss of its antecedent in the very act of reasoning from it and from what is taken as axiomatic in it. This is the Modernist enigma, and the clue to the dilemma of the eyewitness.
正义是社会的和平，而不是抓坏人。执着于找出有罪的一方，是一种分离制度的一部分，是对犯罪行为宣战的一部分。也就是说，我们没有给予罪犯回归社会的手段，而是加以区分和污名化。这是国内殖民体系的一部分。盎格鲁-撒克逊英格兰的诺曼统治者试图强制推行拉丁法典和法国风格的法律程序，这并非偶然，尽管他们这样制定的法律本质上是本土的。这是为了权力，不是为了正义。罗马法与其说是一种正义，不如说是一种仪式的精确执行，它是在这个过程中第一个犯错误的人，通常会输掉官司。在这个过程中，双方都试图用一系列法律格言中的一条来阐述案情，这就是为什么今天的法律充满了费解的拉丁短语，令人恼火，比如?或者，用haec verba?意思是让我们所有人都觉得自己愚蠢或无可救药的天真，并准备接受结果(或买单!) But this obfuscation of the meaning of justice gets a little clearer if we make a sharp distinction between memory as a forensic tool, and memory as a part of what reason is.
The reason we still rely on eyewitnesses in court is the same as our reliance on them in identifying the dead. It is intimacy. It is because we value them that we are called upon to give a name to the dead. But the witness in a court today is too often called upon, not to value, but to evaluate. One recognizes a part of one's domestic life, the other establishes as outlaw to it. This is why the same intuitive reflex can have such opposite rates of reliability. Estrangement is no faculty of identification. The witness demands it must be the one, the loved one in the morgue says it can't be. The point of reliability should be obvious. But if the legal system recognized justice as social peace rather than estrangement, the difference would not be so pernicious.
我对阿兹海默症患者有一点小经验。这样做的一个影响是，我有一种奇怪的感觉，觉得自己也有类似的症状。但仔细观察会发现记忆是如何运作的。当我忘记的时候，我知道这一点，我知道如何刷新我的记忆。但这个过程绝不是访问某些保存的记录。记忆不是头脑中的一个地方，也不是对过去事件的固定保存。这是一连串的提醒，既不是通过关联，也不是通过某些现有的“神经通路”机制。这是一个创造的过程。我们首先记住的是我们在那里的行踪、存在、心情或性格印象。这种感觉是无法用语言表达的，尽管它是一种最正常的精神状态，也许以至于我们还没有抽出时间来研究它。 Science, religion, psychology and even meditative systems let us down in this. But when the trigger is activated the cascade is so spontaneous that all of a sudden what seemed infinitely inaccessible is suddenly pulled into a complete vision and array of feeling. The Alzheimer's victim is bereft of these triggers. This is palpable to any extent of observation. Looking right at the reminder doesn't trigger the cascade of collected thought. This is why there is no locus to who we are, to what mind and reason and memory is. In a real sense it hasn't happened yet. We have to keep doing it, though it is said that if we live long enough we will all lose the faculty to do so. I do know that as I get older I get distracted from the needs of life and more lost in thought. Or is it found? For it is one of the abiding enigmas and vexations of life that we lose ourselves in distinguishing which one is which and remembering what to do next, in an endless sequence of evaluations forgotten the value of it all.

"Disability is a matter of perception. If you can do just one thing well, you're needed by someone." - Martina Navratilova

我们人类有不完美的地方。始终保持积极的态度和略带滑稽的人生观是至关重要的。
https://www.zenethculture.com/life-and-your-numbers/

Just remembered another Jaspers tidbit:
Truth varies according to the origin of its content.
Wrap your minds around that one, folks. I think it must mean something like: there is no truth other than that which does not require human approval. Or perhaps more succinctly: there are three versions of the truth, 1) what I think it is, 2) what you think it is, and, 3) what it really is.
Warmest regards, Neuman.

Or maybe he meant something like Foucault's sense of "archeology"?

The three versions or visions of truth, 1) is, 2) is, and 3) is.
How simple truth is.
= is

The ontological fallacy is what it is. What it is!

The rules of evidence are dismissive of a witness's self-examination. The witness is not permitted to question the intention of the questions directed at him or her, nor to adress the jury or judge directly, or to mitigate or qualify responses. Juries, similarly, are expected to be passive observers. In England, juries can interrupt testimony to ask questions, and the prosecution is not a government agent in close association with the police and court, they are contracted, in the same way the public defender is contracted here. An elected prosecutor has every incentive to cheat, and many, if not most, do. It is a perversion of rational investigation. Reasons can always be found to support a predetermined conclusion, especially if contrary evidence is ignored or excluded. The defense may fill in the other side, but this sets up a decision between sides that is toxic to truth, and to justice. We don't chose sides based on the facts if we are not responsible for exploring all evidence contrary to our own prejudices. Basic themes of reason do indeed take on different implications depending on the origin of their terms. What Jaspers was getting at was very likely, and much more fully developed, by Foucault, as in works like The History of Sexuality, and Birth of the Clinic. Are we trapped in the historical terms of our presumed powers of reason, as the jury is trapped in the panel, sworn to silently observe as a travesty of 'investigation' takes place before them, and kept in ignorance of the full scale of their rights, and of the complete process of evidentiary rules? It may be as serious an issue as the accuracy of the perception and memory of the witness that the prosecutor has probably coached him or her in how to deflect the doubts provoked by the defense. Prosecutorial crime is often more eggregious than the indictment. This is especially tragic since what most poor communities need, as much as a good school system and a fairer shot at the opportunity of a good life, is dilligent, but fair and respectful, policing. There is a lot more to perception and memory than systems of observation and retreival. Fallibility is indispensable to a fair review of the facts, let alone the experience of them. To err is human, to lie (and get away with it) is divine!

Michael,
I hope you take the time to read the Euthydemus, you may find yourself eeriely reflected in it.

I see my reflection in everything, equally. =
Reflection
Seeing your reflection on a calm river can reveal a true picture of Oneself. Ripples like complexities and disorders that are normal to life can distort who One really is. During rough times, life can make the truth impossible to see. Calming self externally and internally, One?s true self becomes clear.
找到你的倒影，让自己平静下来，做真实的自己。
And beyond reflection?..
=

另一个相当博学的灵魂写了可能是关于真理的权威文章。我推荐它。
Look for: ON TRUTH, by Harry Frankfurt. A small book, to be sure-but so deep in its simplicity.
Neuman.

Perception is colored by expectation. Memory, a questionable perception of the questionable mental trace of an earlier questionable perception, is trebly suspect. I could provide enough examples from my own life to make the reader doubt anything I say.

Fine, but does that help you find your keys? And even if observation and memory are put in their rightful context in a trial, the problem remains how to pursue justice in an era of sense and memory skepticism. DNA sample the world and flood our cities and towns with surveillance? In a world where everyone is watched, who watches the watchers? Too much talk of justice presumes that the purpose of a trial is not to find the guilty and to establish a regimen of reconciliation, but to identify those unworthy of social rights, and to permanently remove them. Where that mood governs the proceedings fallible perception and memory is the least of the problem.

All those reflections! If flattering, I wouldn't trust them. That's why I don't look for my reflection. In fact, it is precisely the problem being discussed here that we too easily see our own reflection instead of what is really there. I suppose there is some virtue in not seeing enemies everywhere that is not our own reflection, which is the other side of the same coin. But it is only where we find only in the stranger an opportunity to be more who we ourselves are that we are ready to do justice. Where memory serves, remembrance and its motive are secreted from each other. With that secretion, tyranny begins.
它是为了推翻记忆所不存在的暴政。如果使用得当，这种不可靠是一种美德。

A thought experiment: Try to write down your prior day's activities from when you woke to the end of the day in complete detail, when finished, wait an hour and then repeat the exercise and write the story again. Has the story changed in any detail? And if so which is most likely, then which story is correct?
I rest my case Your Honor,
=

..., and the judge directs the jury to disregard it. The issue is not that memory is fallible. There is still something we call memory, however fallible. The question is, for what can it be relied on. Sometimes a fallible memory is the most objectively valuable evidence. For instance, where clear forensic evidence proves guilt, can a character witness exculpate?