Society would fall apart if juries had social workers, lawyers, and scientists on them, surely
In a way, yes, it would.
It would be replaced by a new, better, society, but the society as is would not work if you allowed smart, thoughtful, empathic, people who pay attention into juries.
I mean, they might find police to be untrustworthy, or point out how flimsy the evidence is.
And societal order as it exists now kinda depends on that not happening.
I just spent the morning in a virtual version of an escape room which was basically a jury deliberation room. Strong spoilers below: if you think you'd ever be interested in playing this kind of game, do not read! But do feel free to ask me for a link, it's a pretty good way to do a remote game night!
We had access to a bunch of evidence, and could interview the defendant, and had to decide on the verdict amongst ourselves. Everyone involved was either an academic, a psychologist, or an MD, so we took a pretty analytical approach I guess? We figured out in due course that the defendent was likely innocent of two charges, was probably guilty of the third most serious charge (murder), BUT also the police and crown prosecution had done an horrendously lax job with the investigation, plus there was evidence of some involvement in the case by a high up official in the Ministry of Justice, and he hadn't even been called in for questioning.
So given the lack of material evidence, plus a bunch of procedural problems, we voted to acquit even though we were all pretty much convinced he was guilty of murder, because the framing leant so heavily on the trappings of the real court system. So I was very comfortable with the way we voted - a guilty verdict really needed to have an extremely heavy burden of proof attached. And I know that, since it was a game, we could have condemned the guy and it would have been NBD, but it seemed like our process was the bare minimum for the way the game should be played, let alone if someone's life was actually on the line.
Anyway I guess the point is, we talked to the game designers afterwards, and they told us we were pretty much the only group to uncover all the evidence*, but also one of the few not to convict the defendant. Every other jury who voted to convict on the murder did so based on not much more than gut feeling. And yeah it's just a game, but ...
*(apparently the only way to 'win' the game with any real proof of his guilt was to push the defendant really hard till he broke down and admitted it - we soft-balled him a little in the cross-questioning)
This sounds like the perfect scenario for jury nullification, which is essentially where the jury declares the defendant to be guilty but votes to acquit regardless for whatever reason. It's the sort of thing where knowledge of it alone can get you booted from voir dire.
Society would fall apart if juries had social workers, lawyers, and scientists on them, surely
In a way, yes, it would.
It would be replaced by a new, better, society, but the society as is would not work if you allowed smart, thoughtful, empathic, people who pay attention into juries.
I mean, they might find police to be untrustworthy, or point out how flimsy the evidence is.
And societal order as it exists now kinda depends on that not happening.
I just spent the morning in a virtual version of an escape room which was basically a jury deliberation room. Strong spoilers below: if you think you'd ever be interested in playing this kind of game, do not read! But do feel free to ask me for a link, it's a pretty good way to do a remote game night!
We had access to a bunch of evidence, and could interview the defendant, and had to decide on the verdict amongst ourselves. Everyone involved was either an academic, a psychologist, or an MD, so we took a pretty analytical approach I guess? We figured out in due course that the defendent was likely innocent of two charges, was probably guilty of the third most serious charge (murder), BUT also the police and crown prosecution had done an horrendously lax job with the investigation, plus there was evidence of some involvement in the case by a high up official in the Ministry of Justice, and he hadn't even been called in for questioning.
So given the lack of material evidence, plus a bunch of procedural problems, we voted to acquit even though we were all pretty much convinced he was guilty of murder, because the framing leant so heavily on the trappings of the real court system. So I was very comfortable with the way we voted - a guilty verdict really needed to have an extremely heavy burden of proof attached. And I know that, since it was a game, we could have condemned the guy and it would have been NBD, but it seemed like our process was the bare minimum for the way the game should be played, let alone if someone's life was actually on the line.
Anyway I guess the point is, we talked to the game designers afterwards, and they told us we were pretty much the only group to uncover all the evidence*, but also one of the few not to convict the defendant. Every other jury who voted to convict on the murder did so based on not much more than gut feeling. And yeah it's just a game, but ...
*(apparently the only way to 'win' the game with any real proof of his guilt was to push the defendant really hard till he broke down and admitted it - we soft-balled him a little in the cross-questioning)
This sounds like the perfect scenario for jury nullification, which is essentially where the jury declares the defendant to be guilty but votes to acquit regardless for whatever reason. It's the sort of thing where knowledge of it alone can get you booted from voir dire.
Less you declare someone innocent or guilty but rather judge the law.
Edit: rather I should say jury nullification is more “so and so is not guilty not because of the evidence presented, but because the law is fucked and everybody involved can get fucked”
An important process of our judicial system sadly handicapped
Dead Legend on
diablo III - beardsnbeer#1508 Mechwarrior Online - Rusty Bock
Society would fall apart if juries had social workers, lawyers, and scientists on them, surely
In a way, yes, it would.
It would be replaced by a new, better, society, but the society as is would not work if you allowed smart, thoughtful, empathic, people who pay attention into juries.
I mean, they might find police to be untrustworthy, or point out how flimsy the evidence is.
And societal order as it exists now kinda depends on that not happening.
I just spent the morning in a virtual version of an escape room which was basically a jury deliberation room. Strong spoilers below: if you think you'd ever be interested in playing this kind of game, do not read! But do feel free to ask me for a link, it's a pretty good way to do a remote game night!
We had access to a bunch of evidence, and could interview the defendant, and had to decide on the verdict amongst ourselves. Everyone involved was either an academic, a psychologist, or an MD, so we took a pretty analytical approach I guess? We figured out in due course that the defendent was likely innocent of two charges, was probably guilty of the third most serious charge (murder), BUT also the police and crown prosecution had done an horrendously lax job with the investigation, plus there was evidence of some involvement in the case by a high up official in the Ministry of Justice, and he hadn't even been called in for questioning.
So given the lack of material evidence, plus a bunch of procedural problems, we voted to acquit even though we were all pretty much convinced he was guilty of murder, because the framing leant so heavily on the trappings of the real court system. So I was very comfortable with the way we voted - a guilty verdict really needed to have an extremely heavy burden of proof attached. And I know that, since it was a game, we could have condemned the guy and it would have been NBD, but it seemed like our process was the bare minimum for the way the game should be played, let alone if someone's life was actually on the line.
Anyway I guess the point is, we talked to the game designers afterwards, and they told us we were pretty much the only group to uncover all the evidence*, but also one of the few not to convict the defendant. Every other jury who voted to convict on the murder did so based on not much more than gut feeling. And yeah it's just a game, but ...
*(apparently the only way to 'win' the game with any real proof of his guilt was to push the defendant really hard till he broke down and admitted it - we soft-balled him a little in the cross-questioning)
Your thoughts about process remind me a lot of one of the last classes I took for my masters. Professor was a highly-known admiral in the navy, well respected, and spoke to us a lot about the process of making decisions and how to frame problems. We had some really interesting simulations like this, and it kinda went to show the moderating effect decision making processes can have on people.
Article about how one police department in FL is interpreting a victims’ rights law called Marsy’s Law to hide the identity and body cam footage of the officer involved.
I remember seeing this amendment in the FL 2018 elections and how there were concerns of it being overly broad. Now it seems to be a tool for law enforcement to shield themselves from accountability. There are similar amendments and laws already in other states as well.
I do a few things. Some times I'll purge the anger by listening to angry music and doing some exercise.
Other times I will work out small goals I can reasonably accomplish and knock them over. I joke in the thread like, 'radicalise your dad!' But honestly, helping people to understand how bad our systems are is really cathartic for me. I don't try doing this online with strangers. My wife and I are on the same page, so we'll like, plan together and work on our friends together.
I donate time and money to worthy causes, which helps.
Sometimes I'll just disengage and watch something light-hearted, or look at wholesome memes, or cute animal pictures for a while.
We are lucky where I am in that the covid lockdown is pretty much over (no community transmission). I can catch up with friends and go out for dinner and stuff. I'm staying off the booze because im finding when I'm drunk the anger comes out.
Feel free to hit me up on PMs if you want to shoot the shit with someone
You could try a new hobby, if you have the time and resources? Woodworking is always a good one. Bladesmithing looks very interesting, too. You could even combine them!
0
Options
FishmanPut your goddamned hand in the goddamned Box of Pain.Registered Userregular
For instance, the law of the state of Michigan reads:
(1) A person is guilty of ethnic intimidation if that person maliciously, and with the specific intent to intimidate or harass another person because of that person's race, colour, religion, gender, or national origin, does any of the following:
(a) Causes physical contact with another person.
(b) Damages, destroys or defaces any real or personal property of another person.
(c) Threatens, by word or act, to do any act described in subdivision (a) or (b), if there is reasonable cause to believe that an act described in subdivision (a) or (b) will occur.
(2) Ethnic intimidation is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.
(3) Regardless of the existence or outcome of any criminal prosecution, a person who suffers an injury to his or her person or damage to his or her property as a result of ethnic intimidation may bring a civil cause of action against the person who commits the offence to secure an injunction, actual damages, including damages for emotional distress, or other appropriate relief. A plaintiff who prevails in a civil action brought according to this section may recover both of the following:
(a) Damages in the amount of 3 times the actual damages described in this subsection or $2,000.00, whichever is greater.
(b) Reasonable attorney fees and costs.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
So according to the legal wording, since nothing was damaged and nobody physically hurt, they're gonna have to make the argument that the lady with the gun was threatened.
So according to the legal wording, since nothing was damaged and nobody physically hurt, they're gonna have to make the argument that the lady with the gun was threatened.
Even though she was doing the threatening.
Yes, Your Honor, but only because Black people are scary.
So according to the legal wording, since nothing was damaged and nobody physically hurt, they're gonna have to make the argument that the lady with the gun was threatened.
Even though she was doing the threatening.
Based on that wikipedia entry those people would be guilty of ethnic intimidation if all they did was verbally or nonverbally threaten to come into physical contact (at all) with the Wuestenbergs because of the color of their skin or gender. Before the gun ever came out, one of the Hills said "Dumb ass bitch" to Mrs. Wuestenberg as her husband got her into the car. Then, to the husband, she said "Yeah, I said it. You say something and I'll beat your white ass too." That along with all the "white people" and "white lady"s makes me think there might be something to the ethnic intimidation charge. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really know, but as a white zinfandel myself I have an interest. We'll find out as it works its way through the justice system.
Watching through the video, basically everyone involved seems to be a rude idiot with zero sense for de-escalation until the Wuestenbergs decide they've had enough, try to leave, and are prevented from doing so by the Hills. Then Mrs. Wuestenberg pulls the gun and starts screaming at the Hills to get the fuck back, they do so, and the Wuestenbergs get away.
I would fear for my life too if a group of people threatened to beat me, then physically prevented me from leaving the area. Then again, I don't get into those situations in the first place. I apologize when I jostle people and I GTFO reet-quick the moment people start talking like the Hills did.
WhiteZinfandel on
0
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
"ethnic intimidation" eh?
I wonder what the race is of most of the people charged with it...
I was going to make a sarcastic comment about anti-hate speech laws leading to authoritarian governments to poke fun at free speech absolutists but then I remembered the state of the UK government currently.
I wonder what the race is of most of the people charged with it...
After spending ten minutes googling around in incognito mode (to unbias the algorithm and also because I don't want that shit in my history) I didn't find any statistical analysis on the subject. The five or so cases of people actually charged with it that incidentally came up in my searching were all white, though I'm aware that number is worth nothing.
WhiteZinfandel on
0
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
I wonder what the race is of most of the people charged with it...
After spending ten minutes googling around in incognito mode (to unbias the algorithm and also because I don't want that shit in my history) I didn't find any statistical analysis on the subject. The five or so cases of people actually charged with it that incidentally came up in my searching were all white, though I'm aware that number is worth nothing.
It may simply be that it isn't charged that often.
Posts
build up toxin tolerance by being somewhat aware of politics in the united states (and elsewhere) for your whole life
This sounds like the perfect scenario for jury nullification, which is essentially where the jury declares the defendant to be guilty but votes to acquit regardless for whatever reason. It's the sort of thing where knowledge of it alone can get you booted from voir dire.
Less you declare someone innocent or guilty but rather judge the law.
Edit: rather I should say jury nullification is more “so and so is not guilty not because of the evidence presented, but because the law is fucked and everybody involved can get fucked”
An important process of our judicial system sadly handicapped
Your thoughts about process remind me a lot of one of the last classes I took for my masters. Professor was a highly-known admiral in the navy, well respected, and spoke to us a lot about the process of making decisions and how to frame problems. We had some really interesting simulations like this, and it kinda went to show the moderating effect decision making processes can have on people.
Get super fucking pissed
senzu beans
Article about how one police department in FL is interpreting a victims’ rights law called Marsy’s Law to hide the identity and body cam footage of the officer involved.
I remember seeing this amendment in the FL 2018 elections and how there were concerns of it being overly broad. Now it seems to be a tool for law enforcement to shield themselves from accountability. There are similar amendments and laws already in other states as well.
I certainly wish I knew.
Stop focusing and caring about the victims and instead focus on the string of bad rolls on loaded dice that got them killed.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
ExtraMostBestest Stuffed Crust works for a little bit.
@Kayne Red Robe
I do a few things. Some times I'll purge the anger by listening to angry music and doing some exercise.
Other times I will work out small goals I can reasonably accomplish and knock them over. I joke in the thread like, 'radicalise your dad!' But honestly, helping people to understand how bad our systems are is really cathartic for me. I don't try doing this online with strangers. My wife and I are on the same page, so we'll like, plan together and work on our friends together.
I donate time and money to worthy causes, which helps.
Sometimes I'll just disengage and watch something light-hearted, or look at wholesome memes, or cute animal pictures for a while.
We are lucky where I am in that the covid lockdown is pretty much over (no community transmission). I can catch up with friends and go out for dinner and stuff. I'm staying off the booze because im finding when I'm drunk the anger comes out.
Feel free to hit me up on PMs if you want to shoot the shit with someone
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
You could try a new hobby, if you have the time and resources? Woodworking is always a good one. Bladesmithing looks very interesting, too. You could even combine them!
Also: begone, damned forum bug.
WHAT
That affluenza kid was found not guilty.
It looks like that's an actual legal term.
Even though she was doing the threatening.
Yes, Your Honor, but only because Black people are scary.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Based on that wikipedia entry those people would be guilty of ethnic intimidation if all they did was verbally or nonverbally threaten to come into physical contact (at all) with the Wuestenbergs because of the color of their skin or gender. Before the gun ever came out, one of the Hills said "Dumb ass bitch" to Mrs. Wuestenberg as her husband got her into the car. Then, to the husband, she said "Yeah, I said it. You say something and I'll beat your white ass too." That along with all the "white people" and "white lady"s makes me think there might be something to the ethnic intimidation charge. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really know, but as a white zinfandel myself I have an interest. We'll find out as it works its way through the justice system.
Watching through the video, basically everyone involved seems to be a rude idiot with zero sense for de-escalation until the Wuestenbergs decide they've had enough, try to leave, and are prevented from doing so by the Hills. Then Mrs. Wuestenberg pulls the gun and starts screaming at the Hills to get the fuck back, they do so, and the Wuestenbergs get away.
I would fear for my life too if a group of people threatened to beat me, then physically prevented me from leaving the area. Then again, I don't get into those situations in the first place. I apologize when I jostle people and I GTFO reet-quick the moment people start talking like the Hills did.
I wonder what the race is of most of the people charged with it...
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I had a guy walk up to be after I knocked on the trunk of his car.
He was thug.
In Dubai.
She is a thug.
In America.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
After spending ten minutes googling around in incognito mode (to unbias the algorithm and also because I don't want that shit in my history) I didn't find any statistical analysis on the subject. The five or so cases of people actually charged with it that incidentally came up in my searching were all white, though I'm aware that number is worth nothing.
It may simply be that it isn't charged that often.
Bourbon.
Edit: I zoomed in that's his firearm
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534