- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- news
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- news
You must log in or register to comment.
I know it’s exited the news cycle, but I still remember this was a big thing for the left and right to both agree on supporting. I’d very much like to prompt Trump for his opinion on the man to force him to take a side.
Pray for Saint Luigi
Sanders was the compromise choice
Luigi 2028
Anyone smarter than me in law know if there is even a remote chance he walks?
Aside from the nullification and hung jurys, there’s a good chance for a mistrial from them parading him around and letting everyone in the US know he fought for them.
I’m not good at law but I have heard from people smarter than me that there are chances for at least a hung jury (I think could be retried) and there’s also another option called jury nullification, where the jury essentially says, “yeah we know he is guilty but we don’t agree with the law in this case” and acquits.
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.
Jury’s have kind of always been vibes. There’s plenty of black kids that got the guilty verdict and hung and later it was revealed to be the womans father or friend of the family that raped.
It is important to be more than a clockwork orange, understand the law but don’t apply it with such rigidity as to be devoid of morals or humanity.
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.
Laws consistently and rigidly applied out of context is how you get to fascist governments.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_rise_to_power
He isn’t a threat to the public. No need to lock him up. Odds are good he won’t reoffend either.
I have two arguments to defend jury nullification. First of all, in our system “jury nullification” is NOT a policy. It is the name for the inevitable fact to that members of a jury can decide to vote “innocent” without being subject to some kind of interrogation.
My second argument is this: I think jury nullification is actually a good policy, because the only thing it produces are delays unless fully 12 out of 12 randomly selected citizens think this application of the law is completely unfair. If the citizenry believes a law is unfair with that much unanimity it probably IS unfair.
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.
To be fair, both Biden and Trump set aside the law by not actually banning TikTok, so it makes sense that at least in some specific instances, normal people are allowed to as well.
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.
A President is not a king. We fought a couple wars about it. We might fight another soon.
Why let only judges make the jokes then and not the people in the jury too?
Imho that’s a fairness in a sometimes unfair system.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.
I do believe that the perception of the action of which Luigi got accused weighes orders of magnitude more than the perception of his appearance or his popularity.
It’s not him who was popular in the first place.
It was what was done.
Accusing him of it in turn made him popular. That would’ve worked for other people too.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.
Not just that. He likely lowered their insurance premium as well.
Because judges have experience in law, and they have to stand by their decisions.
The judges in the USSC want to have a word with you.
Because that’s how lynch mobs got off without penalties too. It’s very much a case of being careful what you wish for in this case. If he gets off because the jury says it’s OK to gun someone down without direct provocation, you can bet that others will too. You shot a gay man for no reason? No problem, the jury says that’s fine. You shot someone you suspect of having sympathies for Democrats? Head home, the jury was packed with MAGAs.
Well, given that jury nullification is a thing and considering how rarely it happens, I’d rather risk the scenarios outlined by you than having no way of giving a not guilty verdict to people this way who do something illegal but legitimate.
The court system is a joke already.
It always was
No. He’s going to die in prison. I’m not happy about that fact. I’m just telling the truth. Just like there’s zero chance Charles Manson ever gets out. There’s zero chance Luigi gets out.
Might happen. Then when a sensible government gets in, somewhere down the line, we pardon him and make him secretary of HHS
Eat the rich
Wait … how is that link working?? kbin.social has been offline for months.
Edit: Ohhhh … the name of the community at LW is “[email protected]” - now I see.
No, you’re right the 1st time. It’s eattherich, hosted at kbin. It’s a weird side effect of federating. The original instance hosting the comm is gone, but all posts and comments go into the local instance first (in this case, Ozma’s posts to .world) to be federated back to the main instance (kbin). Since kbin is gone, that federation ain’t happening, and nobody from any other instance can view the content from their home instance. But you can directly view .world’s local copy of what it thinks the instance should look like, which contains all of Ozma’s contributions.
This is super cool
I don’t think we’ve yet witnessed the full benefits of the distributed nature/federation.
Is it just me or is the sub empty
It’s not just you. See my other comment for technical explanation.
Your instance needs to be instructed to fetch it.
E.g., by setting up a subscript’ to the community, or viewing individual threads and comments.
The interesting thing here, as the other responder observed, is it’s the local copy of a previously-federated community.
I would have assumed that the copies would be read-only from outside the actual instance. But it sounds like you’re able to post to the copied-communities too. Lul.
It’s you.
Given the way federating works, just because you’re seeing something doesn’t mean everybody else is seeing the same thing you do.
And? I can see content there. Parent commenter can’t.
There’s a difference between “works for me”, and “it’s you”.
But I am full!
Then slowed… then surged… then slowed… then surged… then slowed… then they had some orange juice and a muffin… and now they’re surging again.
Then it fell into the swamp
