Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)F

fine_sandy_bottom

@ fine_sandy_bottom @discuss.tchncs.de

Posts
4
Comments
1208
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Donations to Luigi Mangione's legal defense fund slowed, then surged

    Jump

  • I can't believe I have to say this but, you can't expect consistent application of the law while arguing that exceptions should be made when you like the perp.

  • Locked

    Shutdown 315

    Jump

  • Oh my sweet summer child.

    This is hyperbole which doesn't help anyone.

    "Fighting" at every opportunity just runs you down. As in all things you need to pick your battles and I fear that this isn't the right one to pick.

  • Donations to Luigi Mangione's legal defense fund slowed, then surged

    Jump

  • This is just more words saying the same thing - that jurors should just make up the law based on the vibe of the case. It's absurd to me that so many people in these threads complain that the legal system is unfair, and in the next breath propose that citizens should be able to set aside the law in specific situations because of the feels.

    That is the antithesis of a fair and just system and honestly it's exasperating rehashing the same concept over and over.

    The answer to why guilt is determined by a jury of your peers is that it avoids having a judiciary that can charge, convict, and sentence a defendant. That seems patently obvious to me.

    You need to be found guilty of the charges against you by a jury of your peers. The whole point is that the jury is not experienced in law, and interprets the facts and evidence as any reasonable third party would.

    Juries are not appropriately positioned to determine a sentence because they are not experienced and have no frame of reference.

    It's telling that in these threads my comments are awash with downvotes but no one can provide an actual rebuttal.

    Basically, people just don't want luigi to be punished for murdering a shitty CEO. Sadly, that doesn't make jury nullification a legitimate course of action.

  • Donations to Luigi Mangione's legal defense fund slowed, then surged

    Jump

  • I don't really follow you sorry.

    I suppose wealthy murderers are probably less likely to get convicted due to better representation. I would've thought Luigi had pretty good representation given his gofundme.

  • Donations to Luigi Mangione's legal defense fund slowed, then surged

    Jump

  • You could say that about most murderers. Why not just abolish the prohibition on murder?

  • Donations to Luigi Mangione's legal defense fund slowed, then surged

    Jump

  • ... and yet ...

  • Donations to Luigi Mangione's legal defense fund slowed, then surged

    Jump

  • Nonsense. Laws may be consistently applied by racist governments but it's the nature of those laws (luke ethnic cleansing) that makes them fascist.

  • Locked

    Shutdown 315

    Jump

  • It won't do anything.

    Whatever people don't buy on the 15th will simply be bought on the 16th.

    Guaranteed the capitalists you're trying to contact won't even notice.

  • Locked

    Shutdown 315

    Jump

  • Yep we should do something just to avoid doing nothing.

  • Donations to Luigi Mangione's legal defense fund slowed, then surged

    Jump

  • I strongly disagree. Laws must be consistently applied.

    To set aside the law prohibiting murder in a specific case just because you don't like the victim is the antithesis of a fair and just legal system.

  • Donations to Luigi Mangione's legal defense fund slowed, then surged

    Jump

  • No, that doesn't make any sense at all.

    Presidents are elected to weird ultimate power, and are intended to do so with the support of the best advice available.

  • Donations to Luigi Mangione's legal defense fund slowed, then surged

    Jump

  • That's not the type of popularity I'm talking about.

    Luigi is young, approachable, affable, and not unattractive. I don't believe for a moment that someone without those qualities would enjoy any sympathy from a jury.

  • Donations to Luigi Mangione's legal defense fund slowed, then surged

    Jump

  • Well, to your first point, jurors cannot be held accountable for their verdict. Obviously if they could the whole system breaks down. Jurors can exploit this protection to return a false verdict with impunity, but it is exactly that - false testament. Others will try to say that jury nullification is an intended feature of the legal system but IMO it's just exploiting a limitation.

    Secondly, you're not talking about an unfair law, you're talking about an unjust outcome. All laws will produce unjust outcomes in some specific circumstances. However a law against murder reduces more harm than it causes, so it's worth upholding.

    To me, the idea of having juries decide to set aside the law in cases they feel are unjust is an absurdity. Imagine if Trump were on trial and the jury unanimously returned not-guilty despite obvious guilt.

  • Donations to Luigi Mangione's legal defense fund slowed, then surged

    Jump

  • It's really not a "fairness" because every case will be heard by different jurors with no legal experience.

    The "fairness" you're talking about will depend on the popularity of the accused.

    Do you honestly believe Luigi would enjoy the support he has of he were an aging overweight bald guy?

    At its core, jury nullification is about deciding cases based on the vibe.

  • Donations to Luigi Mangione's legal defense fund slowed, then surged

    Jump

  • Because judges have experience in law, and they have to stand by their decisions.

  • Donations to Luigi Mangione's legal defense fund slowed, then surged

    Jump

  • The jury nullification thing pisses me off.

    I get that people don't want Luigi to go to jail but wishing for juries to just make up the law based on the vibe of the case is just bonkers.

    The court system is a joke already.

  • What are some examples of 'common sense' which are nonsense?

    Jump

  • My explanation is better:

    There's three doors, of which one is the winner.

    First, pick a door to exclude. You have a 66% chance of correctly excluding a non-winning door.

    Next, Monty excludes a non- winning door with certainty.

    Finally, open the remaining door and take the prize!

  • What are some examples of 'common sense' which are nonsense?

    Jump

  • This is a common argument in our house.

  • Federal health workers terrified after ‘DEI’ website publishes list of ‘targets’

    Jump

  • I think I've had enough internet for a few months.

    I just feel so despairing and helpless. I'm not even American.