On Dec 28, 1:57 pm, "." <agnesche...@gmail.com> wrote:

 Dear Great Judges USA - you make the case of the dare need to expand
your education

  GREAT JUDGES, If you can , please do not involve the whole nation in
your project.

In many countries, even less developed than USA legal educatoion
includes base of psychological theory.
Also, when you  use experts need the definition and scope of
applicatioon of the psychological experts/ evaluators. Can such sacred
knowledge be passed by you now in your in service traning?

Some time ago Senator Sessions, not a stranger to legal education, has
fought against empathy and when cycling it around for 9 months) he
arrived at his compomize as follows:“It seems to be calling again for
judges
to be less committed to fidelity to the law and calling for them to
reach decisions that somehow endeavor to decide who ought to win.”

Cunning now!

In legal cycle you only calling it 'prejudice'; outside of it - bias.
Bias here is refered as decisional process that obvieusly is based in
judgement as cognitive process. If we strive enough we make this one
without emotions
too! Don't kid self that much.

Over year old argument is about someting else and it seems to be about
hurting someone on the judicial flip and not a judgement.In that
cyrcutery you have involved public, NYT and colleaguss.

 Most disagree with you, eg NYT now explains the applications of
empathy or no empathy in the given situation. I told you [rivately to
not drive that fast as the EMPATHY IS THE THERAPEUTIC AGENT THAT MOST
VIEW AS THE ONE THAT HELD THE CRIMINAL TO STOP BEFORE THE NEXT RE-
OFFECE, THUS YOU CONTRADICTED SELF THAN SAYING THAT NO EMPOATHY NEEDED
IN THE COURT. MORE
PRECISELY, BOTH YOU AND THE CRIMINAL NEED THE TOOL IN EMPATHY AS A
HUMAN PROCESS.

“We apply law to facts,” she told the Senate Judiciary Committee last
year. “We don’t apply feelings to facts.”
THIS ONE BY OTHER JUSTICE AS IT SEEMS FROM THE WHOLE CONTEXT UNDER
CLEAR EMOTIONAL PREASSURES OF PEERS. SONIA IS SMART ENOUGH FOR THE
TOPIC, WITH AND WITHOUT PRTEASSURE ( EMOTIONAL THAT IS)

I ALLOW SELF THE LITTLE INSERT HERE WHERE THE EMOTIONS ARE INVOLVED IN
THE JUDICAIL JUDGEMENT PROCESS:

1. EVIDENCE ASSESMENT FOR ITS VALUE REGARDING THE COURT QUESTION ABOUT
THE FACT
    ( each assessment is both cognitive and emotional process)

2. PERSONAL RESPONCE TO THE ESTABLISHED ( BY... OTHERS?)  FACT WHEN
VICTIM IS PHYSCALLY OR PSYCHOLOGICALLY MASACRED ENOUGH FOR THEIR
THRESHOLD ( hallo  Sessions, this one miraculously still be in the
direction of the judicial jusgement clear, meaning ha sno bias againt
the judicial
jusdgement when that emotional; HALLO THERE - THAT IS BECAUSE HUMAN
LAW ALREADY KNOWS THE OTHER HUMAN! mind you, I like to cut your
processes a little myslef.

3. KNOWING WHAT PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESMENT IN THE SENTECING PROCESS
APPLIES TO; WHAT THE QUALIFICATION OF THE BEHAVIOR IS AS A FACT OFTEN
IN SEX CRIMES ; AND WHAT THE BY THE DEFINITION OGF FUNCTION BIASED
THERAPIST AS PATIENT SUPPORT REPORT TO COURT APPLIES TO.

  ( UPSTAIS IN SENATE AND EVEN IN JUDICAIRY THEY FUNCTION AS IF 200
HUNDRED YEARS AGO WHENTHESE FUNCTIONS WERE BNOY DEFEREMNTIATED YET.

PERCEPTION OF HENOIUS EVENTS ARE NEVER WITHOUT EMOTIONS. THESE DO GO
TO THE EVIDENCE
AND DO NEED THE FRAME FOR UNDERSTANDING THEM.

IT IS THAT ALL PERCETIONS ALWAYS HAVE CONOTATIVE ( EMOTIONAL) NOT JUST
LOGICAL DENOTATIONS ( FACTS AS OBSERVATION?). SOME RESEARCHERS WENT AS
FAR AS MAKING THE MAP OF WORD MENING BY BOTH ( WE USUSLY HAVE THE
SHORT CUTB AND DO NOT REFLECT IN TAHT DETAIL ON THE WORDS WE USE; THIs
HAVE COME WITH THE SPEACH DIFERENTIATION WHILE ORIGINALLY ALL WORDS
HAVE A SMELL AND ANTICIPATIONS; this is to say to you that you will
not be able to break anything in the human report to not having
emotions or interpretatiomns at all, fact well known to professional
observers)

$. LEGALISTIC PROFESSIONS GET COMPULSIVE AT TIMES ESPECIALLY WHEN
WANTING TO BE TO COVETED; IN ITSELF STOCK UP SUPRESSED EMOTIONAL
ASPECT OF THE HUMAN COMMUNICATION.
   ( I reserving that modern judges are nothing like that)

YOU SEEM TO BE DIGGING WRONG HOLE.

Lee Epstein, a constitutional scholar at the Northwestern University
School of Law. “You hear ‘empathy’ and you don’t think impartiality,
judicial temperament. The other words, ‘life experience,’ they don’t
have the same impact.”

WHAT THIS SCHOLAR, USING ONLY POPULAR AND NOT SCIENTOFIC USE OF WORDS
HE NEEDS, ALUDES THAT BECAUSE THERE IS A PUBLIC BIAS ( HALLO
SESSIONS!) HE WILL USE THE OTHER
BIAS TO CONQUER THE OTHER.

HALLO, THERE IS ALTERNATIVE - HOW ABOUT RE-ESTABLISH BASIC
PSYCHOLOGICAL EDUCATION FOR LAWYERS, TANT ONE WAS THERE.

EMPATHY FOR A CHANGE NOW, IS THE CAPACITY OF THE HUMAN TO KNOW THE
OTHER HUMAN.
NEWS , IT IS NOT DISSEAPRING BUT YOU NEED MORE TRAINING.

...
It seems that there is something very wrong in which Judges and
Senators 'juming the wrong tree" for more
than a year; ignoring our intelligence by now, too. ( IN PRISON THE
METAPHOR IS GOOD ENOUGH).

and the tips FOR JUDGE SESSIONS AGEAIN IN HOW TO TRAIN SELF EMPATHY
from line by people that are not necessarily trainers in empathy, but
can apply the concept:


"Do these republican senators on the judiciary committee not own a
mirror? When Lindsey Graham looks in it, why can't he see the
bully he accuses the judge of being? And Jeff Sessions, why can't he
see
the racist he thinks the judge is? Would that these folks had a
mirror.
Would save them the shame of parading these unpleasant features
in public view for all of us to see so clearly." was send to NYT
discussion
board on  7/15/09.