Now someone that’s LGBTQ+ and just trying to fit in gets singled out.
allows lawyers to be present
Doesn’t say requires here. So the rich kids get their “full” representation and as a result probably get away with abuse more often than not.
Seriously, he makes essentially no good decisions. Every now and then he throws a bone to some minority group but his driver is causing pain for the marginalized.
Now someone that’s LGBTQ+ and just trying to fit in gets singled out.
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from live hearings.
Doesn’t say requires here.
Hey, I would also prefer if it did. It’s not like I believe Trump actually cares for fairness. Probably just broken clock being right twice a day. These changes happen to make it better than it was, though not perfect by any means.
So the rich kids get their “full” representation and as a result probably get away with abuse more often than not.
I think you are exaggerating a bit. Most people can scrape enough money for a lawyer when their future depends on it and expensive lawyer, while giving rich kids an advantage, does not usually decide the outcome like they do in TV shows. Trials are about finding the truth.
Seriously, he makes essentially no good decisions. Every now and then he throws a bone to some minority group but his driver is causing pain for the marginalized.
And here comes my original point. Being unable to discuss the policy on its merit rather than by who it was proposed by.
I don’t mean to fan the flames, but if trials were indeed about finding the truth, trump himself would already have been jailed or worse long ago. But we don’t live in such a perfect or ideal world.
My friend said it best when he brought up a point one day that “it’s scary to think that in court, it’s more about whoever can argue their case better that wins.” And I have to agree with him on that. (Not that it matters but he is a level-headed highly-educated doctor, not md but in biotech)
I get that you’re trying to be fair with your points about the accused having their rights and a life of their own that can be ruined, but try to imagine yourself in a victim’s shoes. You’re a marginalized minority, you’ve been violated, and the perpetrator(s) have more status/influence/money/litigation powers than you: how would you feel about having less protections and having to face them in a public court where public opinion is more likely than not than not to be against you?
In that instance, getting by with an affordable lawyer would be better than none, but let’s not kid ourselves. Big corporations don’t shell out millions on attorneys to lose in court, so it makes sense that more money equals better odds in court.
try to imagine yourself in a victim’s shoes. You’re a marginalized minority, you’ve been violated, and the perpetrator(s) have more status/influence/money/litigation powers than you
Easy, I’ll just remember the time that my director told me I was not allowed to discuss salary with coworkers. That is against federal law and workplace protections.
When I called the NLRB to report it, they basically said they could file the complaint and bring charges. They were honest but evasive regarding the chances of a complaint against a company this big going anywhere and as nice as they could be in telling me without telling me that whistleblower protections would not save my job.
I don’t mean to fan the flames, but if trials were indeed about finding the truth, trump himself would already have been jailed or worse long ago. But we don’t live in such a perfect or ideal world
I don’t disagree there but that is an extreme case rather then the common trial.
public court
It is not a public court. It is about the right to face the accuser and cross examine them (ask them questions). The only parties required to be present is the panel, the accuser, the accused and their lawyers if they have them.
so it makes sense that more money equals better odds in court.
Yeah, I admitted as much in the first post. But large corporations routinely loose to small guys with cheap lawyers. The quality of lawyers only matter when the case is close (unclear evidence). Which again isn’t perfect but better than any of the alternative.
I get that you’re trying to be fair with your points about the accused having their rights and a life of their own that can be ruined, but try to imagine yourself in a victim’s shoes. You’re a marginalized minority, you’ve been violated, and the perpetrator(s) have more status/influence/money/litigation powers than you: how would you feel about having less protections and having to face them in a public court where public opinion is more likely than not than not to be against you?
Again, what is the alternative? Just fuck it, judge people based on vibes? The lives being ruined is not hypothetical, it happened multiple times.
And again, maybe I would be more sympathetic if the original Title IX included harsh penalties for false accusations to deter them. But it was the opposite. Prosecutors refused to even apply the light penalties that exist for perjury.
The quality of lawyers only matter when the case is close (unclear evidence).
Given that the single greatest hurdle to gaining convictions in rape cases are the lack of witnesses, usually limited to the accuser and the accused, I imagine a good many rape cases, Title IX or otherwise, are largely decided by the relative quality of the lawyers involved.
Now someone that’s LGBTQ+ and just trying to fit in gets singled out.
Doesn’t say requires here. So the rich kids get their “full” representation and as a result probably get away with abuse more often than not.
Seriously, he makes essentially no good decisions. Every now and then he throws a bone to some minority group but his driver is causing pain for the marginalized.
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from live hearings.
Hey, I would also prefer if it did. It’s not like I believe Trump actually cares for fairness. Probably just broken clock being right twice a day. These changes happen to make it better than it was, though not perfect by any means.
I think you are exaggerating a bit. Most people can scrape enough money for a lawyer when their future depends on it and expensive lawyer, while giving rich kids an advantage, does not usually decide the outcome like they do in TV shows. Trials are about finding the truth.
And here comes my original point. Being unable to discuss the policy on its merit rather than by who it was proposed by.
I don’t mean to fan the flames, but if trials were indeed about finding the truth, trump himself would already have been jailed or worse long ago. But we don’t live in such a perfect or ideal world.
My friend said it best when he brought up a point one day that “it’s scary to think that in court, it’s more about whoever can argue their case better that wins.” And I have to agree with him on that. (Not that it matters but he is a level-headed highly-educated doctor, not md but in biotech)
I get that you’re trying to be fair with your points about the accused having their rights and a life of their own that can be ruined, but try to imagine yourself in a victim’s shoes. You’re a marginalized minority, you’ve been violated, and the perpetrator(s) have more status/influence/money/litigation powers than you: how would you feel about having less protections and having to face them in a public court where public opinion is more likely than not than not to be against you?
In that instance, getting by with an affordable lawyer would be better than none, but let’s not kid ourselves. Big corporations don’t shell out millions on attorneys to lose in court, so it makes sense that more money equals better odds in court.
Easy, I’ll just remember the time that my director told me I was not allowed to discuss salary with coworkers. That is against federal law and workplace protections.
When I called the NLRB to report it, they basically said they could file the complaint and bring charges. They were honest but evasive regarding the chances of a complaint against a company this big going anywhere and as nice as they could be in telling me without telling me that whistleblower protections would not save my job.
And I’m not even in a marginalized group.
I don’t disagree there but that is an extreme case rather then the common trial.
It is not a public court. It is about the right to face the accuser and cross examine them (ask them questions). The only parties required to be present is the panel, the accuser, the accused and their lawyers if they have them.
Yeah, I admitted as much in the first post. But large corporations routinely loose to small guys with cheap lawyers. The quality of lawyers only matter when the case is close (unclear evidence). Which again isn’t perfect but better than any of the alternative.
Again, what is the alternative? Just fuck it, judge people based on vibes? The lives being ruined is not hypothetical, it happened multiple times.
And again, maybe I would be more sympathetic if the original Title IX included harsh penalties for false accusations to deter them. But it was the opposite. Prosecutors refused to even apply the light penalties that exist for perjury.
Given that the single greatest hurdle to gaining convictions in rape cases are the lack of witnesses, usually limited to the accuser and the accused, I imagine a good many rape cases, Title IX or otherwise, are largely decided by the relative quality of the lawyers involved.
Yeah, liars should be punished. There is however irony in that statement considering the current president…
Again, what the fuck.
Me: US people are incapable about talking about the actual policy without just bringing up who proposed it.
You: BuT tHe CuRrEnt PrEsIdEnT.