You’re correct in that the jury prevents a corrupt government from convicting innocent people.
That’s why a jury’s role is to return a verdict of guilty or not guilty. You will note there’s no third option for a jury to return a verdict of “guilty but exempt”.
Do you really want a court system where 12 idiots decide whether the law should apply? That’s the antithesis of a fair and just legal system.
I guess this is the core of the issue.
I find it bizarre that anyone could honestly think that a broken system could be improved by allowing 12 random people to make exceptions in exceptional circumstances. Sorry but it’s difficult to say anything charitable about that opinion.
Every case is exceptional, and we have a complex process for weighing the circumstances and determining the least-bad outcome.
You can look at Luigi’s case and say “this victim deserved to die therefore Luigi should not be punished”, but what is the consequence of that? How many people will be murdered that don’t really deserve to die? How many murderers who deserve to be punished will not be?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah what the fuck is with that.
It’s a very twitter centric view of the web. If you’re not on xitter you’re “shutting out a significant portion”.
The thing is, it’s not simply that Musk has an ideology that is disparate from my own, he has an agenda that is egregiously contrary to the stated values of the Debian project.
You’d consult with the community over a new logo or blog layout maybe, but on whether to assist Musk in his far right agenda there’s not really any decision to be made honestly.
I dislike the implication that the most useful apps are not free.
I always feel more comfortable using FOSS software, even if it doesn’t look as nice as the commercial option.
In Australia most retailers discount specific items for “members”. Being a member is free but you need to sign up with your contact details. They will give you a card but no one carries a million cards so cashier’s just ask for your phone number.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority administers phone numbers in Australia and they publish a list of phone numbers which may not be used by telco’s and are reserved for the exclusive use in TV shows, films, and creative works.
I made a note of one of the numbers in my phone, and provide that when asked. Loads of other people are doing this so the number is always registered at every shop.
The conversation usually goes:
I’ve been doing this on a weekly basis since reading about it in another thread (on reddit) a few years ago. I’ve never encountered a problem and I’ve received thousands of dollars in discounts. I would’ve gotten those discounts anyway but would’ve had to sign up with my personal number in order to receive them.
I don’t understand.
How do you confirm whether the property is occupied?
My opinion doesn’t mean much since it’s been forever since I tried any other distro but I’m surprised Debian isn’t on the beginners list.
it might be a bit too involved for an absolute beginner to configure to perfection
I’m not really sure what this means? It might be more accurate to say it’s not the best distro if you’d like to tinker with your desktop experience.
Notably, nothing on the beginners list ought to be run as a headless server, but debian is perfect for that job. The reason I’ve become so enamoured with debian over the years is that I can use it on my desktop and on servers and it’s the same system - everything is exactly where I’m used to it being.
Mind if I ask what you are basing this on?
The overton window.
If the political opinions are reduced to a spectum running from left to right, then in a two party system the major parties will sit immediately to either side of the mid-way point, because they want to seduce as many swing voters as possible from the other side.
As in, the conservative party may have conservative dreams but their policies need to be far enough to the left to actually win an election, so they will push up against the progressive party.
If suddenly more voters vote progressive (the conservative party loses badly), the conservative party needs to adjust their policy settings further to the left.
As the conservative party’s policies move to the left, the progressive party will start losing voters to them unless they also move further to the left.
God I’m sick of explaining this.
If everyone voted for the left-most party, and the right had no votes, the right would move towards the left, pushing the dems along with them.
Not surprisingly, when the country votes left your politics moves left.
Comments like this are the reason why the dems are not the bastion of leftism you so desire.
seem a Hell of a lot closer
“seem” is the critical word there. Interacting with an LLM they do seem to be pretty clever.
I strongly disagree.
I don’t think lemmy is necessarily an echochamber per se, rather its just a place where misinformation exists and opinions are manipulated.
Lemmy does use algorithms to show you the most engaging content, and there are absolutely bots and bad actors manipulating which content is prioritised.
The genocide Joe / vote abstinence thing was a very clear example.
There’s a real risk to this belief.
There are elements of lemmy who use votes to manipulate which ideas appear popular, with the intention of manipulating discourse rather than having open discussions.
Almost like the US are acting in their own interests.
It was a shitshow when I looked at it a few weeks ago.
Juries decide whether defendants are guilty of the charges against them. They do not decide whether the law ought to apply. If you don’t understand the difference then you’re right… I’m not going to be able to put an argument before you that you’ll be able to comprehend.
It’s patently obvious to everyone that a fair and just system of laws needs to apply equally to everyone, even in cases where we dislike the victim.