fine_sandy_bottom @ fine_sandy_bottom @discuss.tchncs.de

Posts

5

Comments

1,679

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's not a question of can, but ought.

Ought a jury just make up the law based on the vibe of the case?

How would you feel if it were Trump on trial for whatever crime and the Jury just decided that although the evidence says he's guilty as sin it just didn't feel right to convict such an important person.

you assume jurors don’t have a sense of ethics and justice

I'm not assuming that at all. Jurors have a very specific role, which is to determine whether the evidence against a defendant is sufficient to find them guilty of the charges against them. That does not require a sense of ethics and justice.

It is fixed, albeit imperfectly.

Jurors are instructed to determine whether a defendant is guilty of the charges against them.

To return a verdict of "not guilty" despite knowing that the defendant is guilty, merely because jurors know they can not be prosecuted is still corruption.

Jurors have no idea what "the law" actually is.

When you say "spirit of the law" really what you mean is "the vibe".

... but in this case everyone is advocating jury nullification so as to avoid punishment, so you don't really need a judge to determine punishment.

Not really. I mean sure some jurors may not like a defendant because of their race, but the court process seeks to mitigate these issues. For example there are 12 jurors and a unanimous verdict is required. The hope being that the majority of jurors will be able to convince a few racist ones to set aside their prejudism.

This isn't really a reason to just throw out the whole process and make trials popularity contests.

The jury's power to nullify is not an intended check.

If the jury is intended to weild this power then you don't need a judge at all. Jury's can just make up the law based on the vibe of the case.

The whole point of a defense attorney and jury is to determine the strength of the evidence.

If a jury feels that evidence is insufficient, that's "reasonable doubt" and they can simply return a verdict of not guilty. You don't need jury nullification for that.

Because they prevent corrupt judges pronouncing innocent defendants guilty.

The salient question is not whether it exists, but whether it's a feature or a bug.

If jurors are intended to resolve questions of law, then judges really have no purpose. Just let jurors decide based on how much they like the defendant.

You may as well just do trial by combat instead - equally as just but far more entertaining.

Sorry mate I'm not going to watch an hour and a half long video so I can understand your common sense.

A good point well made.

My unpopular opinion on this is that the jury should find him guilty, if there is sufficient evidence.

Luigi may not deserve to be punished, but a justice system where juries just make up the law based on the vibe of the case sounds much worse than whatever we have now.

I do believe that there is a time to kill, but one would do so willing to bear the consequences.

I'm not sure you understand what dichotomy means, maybe look it up.

I didn't say privacy laws don't regulate social media.

Yeah I don't really understand the pile on.

Enforcement is not important in any way. If most kids are on social presently, then by making it illegal it just won't be a place for kids to congregate any more. What would be the point of lying about your age to create a facebook account if none of your friends are there.

Sure, some kids will still be on social, perhaps most kids will be, but there's no doubt in my mind that their usage will diminish dramatically. That's how public health works.

With great sadness I have to agree with you.

It's just one shit show after another. Voice to parliament, live export ban, and now this. Meanwhile Australians are being ground into the dust by price gouging corporations and interest rate hikes.

That said I am in support of this legislation, but it's just not enough.

This is a false dichotomy.

You can regulate social media platforms and have great infrastructure.

Your own childhood sounds tough, but advocating for social media as a way to mitigate shitty communities is a weird take.

Platforms love to use this threat... "if you regulate us we'll just withdraw services in your jurisdiction". They never do, and governments shouldn't respond to threats like that in any case. If one or other platform were to restrict services in Aus, it would just increase the potential revenue for some other platform.

Sure but climate change just isn't sexy. "Hey everyone that problem we've been telling everyone about for decades has resulted in the predicted outcome, it's pretty terrible."

That's not really how it works in Australia though.

Every property owner pays an Emergency Services Levy which pays for the fireys. State governments pay for the police force. So there's no organisation that chooses whether police or fire gets whatever money - funding is procured separately.

That said, I take your point that the fireys don't get a lot of attention until there's a disaster. That's just human nature I guess.

In my area, if there's a bushfire that looks like destroying someone's house, the volunteers, fire service, and bombing planes are on to it in minutes.

I don't have "data" but from my anecdotal observations they don't seem to be hamstrung by a lack of funding.