Do you really want a court system where 12 idiots decide whether the law should apply?
Yes. and fun fact we already do, the only way for us to not have it is to do away with juries of ones peers entirely. shrug as I said having random people in the process inoculates it from a ton of problems. move long now. you’re:
not going to be able to prove your claims about it being the antithesis of a fair and just legal system.
I’ve thought about this far longer than you have there isnt a new argument you can put before me that would sway the outcome of this discussion.
you’re clearly one of the idiots by labelling the entire population as idiots.
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.
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.
Who said anything about not applying the laws equally? (fun fact: there is a difference between equal and fair; I believe laws should be applied fairly not equally) if a law is unjust or does has mitigating circumstances (brian thompson decisions resulting is untold amounts of pain/suffering/death for millions of individuals) you ‘equally’ refuse to allow the punishment of defendant by returning a ‘not guilty’ verdict. Luigi was acting in self defense; which is a common defense for when someone gets killed and the defendant was acting within their rights. Its the jury’s job to recognize that convicting luigi of murder is incorrect due to the circumstances and make sure the proper verdict is handed down. ‘not guilty’, regardless of the letter of the law.
pretty simple. again, as i told you earlier I’ve thought about this a lot longer than you have. Its also pretty clear you have no experience in designing systems that need to deal with adverse actors. and that you’re generally an asshole thinking everyone on a jury is an idiot and that you’re probably one of those idiots thinking people need to specialize in law to know right from wrong.
you ‘equally’ refuse to allow the punishment of defendant by returning a ‘not guilty’ verdict
That’s not what equally means. The same law needs to be applied to everyone. Making exceptions creates inequality.
Luigi was acting in self defense
If that is Luigi’s legal defense then the jury needs to weigh the evidence of that claim and if supported of course they would return a not-guilty verdict. That’s not jury nullification.
‘not guilty’, regardless of the letter of the law.
This is, quite obviously, a corruption of the legal process. If jury nullification is an intended feature of the legal process then why aren’t jurors instructed to find the defendant guilty, not-guilty, or exempt? Why don’t defense attorneys tell jury’s that the application of the law in this case is unjust and therefore they should find the defendant not guilty?
Your fixation with DeSiGnInG RoBuSt sYsTeMs is absurd. It doesn’t support your position in any way. I could just as well say that you obviously don’t have a job that requires much thought or requires you to consider complex problems with unquantifiable ethical aspects.
You thinking about this for a long time also does not support your position in any way. People can believe in all sorts of nonsense their entire lives. The inflexibility and inability to support your position is a pretty good indicator that you haven’t really thought about this but merely like how the concept feels.
Yes. and fun fact we already do, the only way for us to not have it is to do away with juries of ones peers entirely. shrug as I said having random people in the process inoculates it from a ton of problems. move long now. you’re:
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.
Who said anything about not applying the laws equally? (fun fact: there is a difference between equal and fair; I believe laws should be applied fairly not equally) if a law is unjust or does has mitigating circumstances (brian thompson decisions resulting is untold amounts of pain/suffering/death for millions of individuals) you ‘equally’ refuse to allow the punishment of defendant by returning a ‘not guilty’ verdict. Luigi was acting in self defense; which is a common defense for when someone gets killed and the defendant was acting within their rights. Its the jury’s job to recognize that convicting luigi of murder is incorrect due to the circumstances and make sure the proper verdict is handed down. ‘not guilty’, regardless of the letter of the law.
pretty simple. again, as i told you earlier I’ve thought about this a lot longer than you have. Its also pretty clear you have no experience in designing systems that need to deal with adverse actors. and that you’re generally an asshole thinking everyone on a jury is an idiot and that you’re probably one of those idiots thinking people need to specialize in law to know right from wrong.
That’s not what equally means. The same law needs to be applied to everyone. Making exceptions creates inequality.
If that is Luigi’s legal defense then the jury needs to weigh the evidence of that claim and if supported of course they would return a not-guilty verdict. That’s not jury nullification.
This is, quite obviously, a corruption of the legal process. If jury nullification is an intended feature of the legal process then why aren’t jurors instructed to find the defendant guilty, not-guilty, or exempt? Why don’t defense attorneys tell jury’s that the application of the law in this case is unjust and therefore they should find the defendant not guilty?
Your fixation with DeSiGnInG RoBuSt sYsTeMs is absurd. It doesn’t support your position in any way. I could just as well say that you obviously don’t have a job that requires much thought or requires you to consider complex problems with unquantifiable ethical aspects.
You thinking about this for a long time also does not support your position in any way. People can believe in all sorts of nonsense their entire lives. The inflexibility and inability to support your position is a pretty good indicator that you haven’t really thought about this but merely like how the concept feels.