criminal justice

What's in a question...". Here's a scenario...
I say something. It could be anything but for the sake of argument, "I hope Trump runs for a third term."

People in hearing range are heard to ask (examples):
   - What do you mean by that?
   - Umm, have you read the Constitution?
   - Why?
   - How do you think that benefits the country?

My interest... Which, if any, of those questions might be considered an invitation to dialogue? Which might elicit a defensive or angry response? If we accept a premise that Our country is being damaged by polarization and hostility, how do we engage with one another to explore the why's behind opinions held? What is your base response when someone asks you a question?

I have observed what I think is shift in definition (or perception) regarding the purpose of a question. To some extent, I think the use and nature of questions has been placed in a negative light. And, that is hazardous to Our ability to gather and analyze information as well as Our opportunities communicate about important societal issues.

At a base level, how much does tone of voice matter? Does who asked -how they look- matter? Does the choice of words affect your response? The time or place? How much of your response is determined primarily by how you interpret the question versus how the questioner might have intended it?

Additional circumstances where I wonder about questions and what they mean or do...
   - How often does a politician who represents you ask your opinion before voting on a matter?
   - Are public polls and surveys able to collect opinion fairly? (I.E., Shouldn't there generally be a "None of the above" option for almost everything you've ever been asked? Or, data about who is taking the poll and for what purpose? I am tired of being forced to answer in a way that defines my 'social box' incorrectly.)
   - Particularly with regard to evaluation of programs, we are asked to place ourselves in various classifications. Income, race, faith, address, age - you know what I mean. These "metrics" are quantitative and objective but... Who decides on the ranges?; Who decides on definitions? When we are measuring whether the quality of someones life has improved, do we need more 'humetrics'?

Have I perhaps managed to kindle curiosity in a dark corner ? :-) It seems to me that this is worth thinking and talking about. It may be part of healing and finding our individual agency to affect the world. It might also be a part of solving problems in a way that promotes positive-sum outcomes. 

Introducing Lauren Tenney, PhD, MOh. Hi! I am Lauren Tenney.  I have several tracks I operate on including social media content development, art, public policy, and environmental psychology.  My book on a history of psychiatry is forthcoming. 

Jeffrey Epstein—what do y'all think? Let's try making sense of the thing surrounding Epstein—

US corruption, money and status and power, sexual abuse and trafficking, complicity, and justice, etc...

Here's a little context, summarized:

Jeffrey Epstein was an American financier and convicted sex offender who built a fortune through relationships with celebrity politicians, business people, and royalty. He's thought to have run a vast sex trafficking operation, victimizing hundreds of underage girls, and it's unclear how many of his associates were involved or aware of what was happening. Things like his controversial plea deal in 2008 indicate American corruption—using his wealth and connections to evade accountability. He was arrested again in 2019 on federal sex trafficking charges but died in a way that is officially called "suicide" and widely considered a cover-up.

Why it matters:
The Epstein case erodes public trust in institutions, fuels partisan weaponization and conspiracy theories about elite corruption, and has become a self-created political nightmare for Trump, who promised file releases during his campaign but now refuses disclosure after learning his name appears in documents, causing unprecedented fractures within his MAGA base who view him as part of the establishment cover-up he once opposed.

AMA - I recently served as a juror on a murder trial. The crime happened within the last five years, and the trial happened within the last six months. I'm happy to discuss anything about my experience except:

• The exact time and location of the crime
• The names of the people involved

Those restrictions are to protect the family members involved in the case, and to protect me in case a family member doesn't like the jurors :|

Any other question is fair game.

And I'll answer the most salient question here first: we did find the defendant guilty of murder.

AMA - I recently served as a juror on a murder trial. The crime happened within the last five years, and the trial happened within the last six months. I'm happy to discuss anything about my experience except:

• The exact time and location of the crime
• The names of the people involved

Those restrictions are to protect the family members involved in the case, and to protect me in case a family member doesn't like the jurors :|

Any other question is fair game.

And I'll answer the most salient question here first: we did find the defendant guilty of murder.

More People Should Die. Elderly people should be able to legally choose to end their life when they’re ready. In fact, any adult should be legally allowed to choose to die. They should be able to invite people, be present for their memorial service, and have a medical professional end their life.

And we should be more present with death in society. People should be able to attend their loved ones’ cremations. Embalming should be illegal.