|
That's fine but people who purposely skip jury duty shouldn't then be complaining about how hosed the jury system is. Its hosed because people are selfish, good luck fixing that problem.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:37 |
|
|
Actually I think it's hosed because it turns trials that are supposed to be about facts into theatrics and swaying randos off the street with emotional appeals. I don't want to have part in something I fundamentally disagree with. Luckily in Canada we have far fewer jury trials than the US since the bar for juries being an option is far higher. edit: That's not to say that any system can be perfectly objective but if it came down to it if I was innocent I'd rather have a judge making the decision because I'd trust a judge to make better decisions based on facts (I guess if I was guilty and trying to get off I'd want a jury so that they could be swayed more easily) edit 2 because why the gently caress not: There are also issues like poor compensation and lack of emotional support/funding for counselling and psych treatment after particularly awful and gruesome trials BattleMaster has a new favorite as of 18:26 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:Actually I think it's hosed because it turns trials that are supposed to be about facts into theatrics and swaying randos off the street with emotional appeals. I don't want to have part in something I fundamentally disagree with. You do realize that trial by jury is completely optional right? Lawyers choose to have a trial by jury because it's better for their client.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
IShallRiseAgain posted:You do realize that trial by jury is completely optional right? Lawyers choose to have a trial by jury because it's better for their client. The fact that it's considered to be advantageous for any party is what I don't like about it, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
You can argue it from both directions though. Sure, a judge should theoretically be in a better position to be completely objective about your case. Operative word there being "should". Because if he's not, you could be completely hosed because the entire thing rests in the hands of a single person. With a jury, if you do get stuck with a few people who have already decided you're guilty, there's still the majority left who can vote not-guilty and save your rear end from prison. Like you said, there's no perfect way and there will always be pros and cons. But smart, upstanding people going out of their way to avoid jury duty certainly doesn't make things any better because it makes the jury pool that much thicker with idiots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:You can argue it from both directions though. Sure, a judge should theoretically be in a better position to be completely objective about your case. Operative word there being "should". Because if he's not, you could be completely hosed because the entire thing rests in the hands of a single person. With a jury, if you do get stuck with a few people who have already decided you're guilty, there's still the majority left who can vote not-guilty and save your rear end from prison. Another thing is that in some places judges are elected and that "tough on crime" is a popular platform to run on so I wouldn't trust a judge in such places. WRT the selection process though I look at it as less like "too stupid to get off the jury" and more like "people who did on purpose won't do anyone any favors anyway." At the least you do want people who want to be there. BattleMaster has a new favorite as of 18:52 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:WRT the selection process though I look at it as less like "too stupid to get off the jury" and more like "people who did on purpose won't do anyone any favors anyway." At the least you do want people who want to be there. I'd much prefer to have a person who'd rather not be there if they're reasonably intelligent and are able to understand basic concepts like burden of proof and probability. That's miles better than, for instance, idiots who think its ok to "go with their gut" or people who have seen too many crime procedurals and think that nobody should ever be convicted without DNA evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I'd much prefer to have a person who'd rather not be there if they're reasonably intelligent and are able to understand basic concepts like burden of proof and probability. That's miles better than, for instance, idiots who think its ok to "go with their gut" or people who have seen too many crime procedurals and think that nobody should ever be convicted without DNA evidence. Unfortunately, being a judge doesn't necessarily mean you have good judgment, a reasonable person's understanding of science, or even a throbbing desire to see justice done. Neither the electoral system nor the appointment system are guarantees against corruption or stupidity. The option to have a trial by jury at least provides someone the chance of a fairer trial if the judge is compromised. Once again, the truly unnerving thing is human nature.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
If you think trial by judge is better, you should read about the kids for cash scandal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal Two judges sentencing and possibly convicting thousands of juveniles in exchange for bribes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
POOL IS CLOSED posted:Once again, the truly unnerving thing is human nature. I feel like that line can sum up every Twilight Zone episode.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:That's fine but people who purposely skip jury duty shouldn't then be complaining about how hosed the jury system is. Its hosed because people are selfish, good luck fixing that problem. Anyway, can we get off this stupid jury duty derail and back to something interesting like plane crashes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
pookel posted:Yo, paying rent isn't selfish. If your situation is that missing a few days of work is going to cost you enough money that you won't be able to pay your rent, then by all means forget about jury duty. That's a pretty specific circumstance though, otherwise just suck it up and go to jury duty. Simply saying "I'd make more money if I didn't go to jury duty today" isn't a valid excuse in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
I always wanted to get called up for jury duty, but the one time I did I was right before I was about to move to another state. The clerk just had me give my new address and sign and that was it. In the ten years since I've never gotten another one. For content: Your Black Muslim Bakery What started out as Muslim bakery in the 60's ended up causing 50 years of every kind of chaos imaginable, from accusations of cultism to sexual abuse, drug dealing, fraud, extortion, political corruption, and murder (including the murder of a journalist who was investigating the business).
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:If your situation is that missing a few days of work is going to cost you enough money that you won't be able to pay your rent, then by all means forget about jury duty. That's a pretty specific circumstance though, otherwise just suck it up and go to jury duty. Simply saying "I'd make more money if I didn't go to jury duty today" isn't a valid excuse in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
pookel posted:Yeah, I don't really know anyone who isn't living paycheck-to-paycheck, so "more money" is pretty much always a "trying to pay the rent" situation. I mean, you can stretch the definition of "trying to pay the rent" as far as you want to rationalize away a responsibility, but if someone is truly a few missed days of income away from being unable to pay rent then I agree with you that its ok to skip jury duty. I've been in that situation myself and I do know that a few days here and there can make the difference in your budget.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:You can argue it from both directions though. Sure, a judge should theoretically be in a better position to be completely objective about your case. "Completely objective about your case" is historically *not* always a desirable thing. Consider that one big historical use of jury nullification was in regards to the Fugitive Slave Act, which required that citizens of Northern states which had abolished slavery were subject to imprisonment and fine if they assisted fugitive slaves by providing them air or food or shelter. Completely objectively, most of the people charged with violating that law were guilty as hell. If you were accused of breaking it, leaving it up to a judge on the basis that he would be more objective than a jury of your probably-abolitionist peers would be probably the single dumbest thing you can do. And that's not like some remote historical antecedent, either. Let's say you're busted on a *Federal* pot charge in Colorado. What you've done is clearly illegal by Federal law, they have you dead to rights, but your action was entirely legal under state law. Do you go before a judge or do you demand a jury trial of your fellow Coloradans who have decided to legalize pot? The "low bar" for jury trials in the US is a specific feature. The people who founded the place weren't too fond of people being tried and judged by a bunch of nobleman-run tribunals and star chambers, and the supremacy of the jury verdict in the face of direction from the courts was a *big deal* to them. William Penn himself was charged with unlawful assembly in 1670, tried by a jury, found not guilty, and then the judge presiding over the case held the jury in contempt of court and threw the *jury* in jail. In the only jury trial ever held before the Supreme Court, the first Chief Justice advised the jury: quote:It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision. A jury can decide how it wants to decide, regardless of the objective law at issue. That's *usually* a feature (and when it's been a bug, like with white Southern juries refusing to convict people who attacked blacks during the Reconstruction or Civil-Rights-era South, that's what leads to exploration of what exactly constitutes a jury of one's peers). I've never seen a low bar to jury trial being criticized as a problem before. quote:Operative word there being "should". Because if he's not, you could be completely hosed because the entire thing rests in the hands of a single person. With a jury, if you do get stuck with a few people who have already decided you're guilty, there's still the majority left who can vote not-guilty and save your rear end from prison. One. One person who thinks you're innocent can vote not guilty and save your rear end from prison. Usually. Jury verdicts don't need to be unanimous in some circumstances but generally in criminal cases they do. Only Oregon and Louisiana allow non-unanimous jury decisions, and 9-3 verdicts are permissible there (I think). But there's no criminal case that I can think of where you'd need a *majority* of the jurors to find in your favor in order to avoid conviction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
RNG posted:I always wanted to get called up for jury duty, but the one time I did I was right before I was about to move to another state. The clerk just had me give my new address and sign and that was it. In the ten years since I've never gotten another one. Wow, thanks. How had I never heard of that? That story has everything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I mean, you can stretch the definition of "trying to pay the rent" as far as you want to rationalize away a responsibility, but if someone is truly a few missed days of income away from being unable to pay rent then I agree with you that its ok to skip jury duty. I've been in that situation myself and I do know that a few days here and there can make the difference in your budget. Your privilege is showing! "Paycheck to paycheck" isn't some rare thing in the US. Using government numbers, more than 10 percent of the population lives in poverty, and those numbers are generous. I mean, $20,000 for a family of three is pretty drat sketchy especially if you live in a food desert and have no car. All it takes is one bad day to wipe you out. What do they call using that as a get-out-of-Jury-Duty card? Undue hardship? Something like that. Anyway, this is pretty unnerving: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2013/09/05/what-poverty-looks-like-in-modern-america quote:This is one of the great eye-openers. America is the wealthiest nation in the world, yet it has higher levels of poverty than any other western democracy. Its poverty rates compare more with a country like Romania than with countries like Canada, France or Germany.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Nckdictator posted:Ok, weird historical thing here. So I was reading up on Nazi collaborators on Wiki and one had a brief reference to a massacre by French soldiers in World War 2 This kind of got lost in all the jury duty chat but it really is fascinating. Thanks for doing some extra digging. Now I am wondering what other athletes got mixed up in things way above their comfort zone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:
That's article's showing up as Access Denied, but I've seen claims like that before and they're frequently just silly because they don't consider buying power at all. Since it's denied, I can't see how they're measuring poverty, but international organizations frequently measure it as a % of the national median household income. UNICEF uses 60%. If you live in the US and your household earns less than 60% of the median household income, you are po. But cross-country comparisons like that are senseless unless you adjust for purchasing power, and in relation to cost of living, the median income in the US is way higher than the median income in a lot of Europe: the middle-class of Romania would be impoverished in the United States.. If you earn only 60% of the median income in the US you're probably better off if you earned the median income in places like Portugal. If you adjust state median incomes for purchasing power on a state-by-state basis (as opposed to just a single value for the entire US), Germany's median income is lower than every single US state, Sweden's median income is higher than only 6 states, Colorado's median income is just about the same as Switzerland.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:Your privilege is showing! "Paycheck to paycheck" isn't some rare thing in the US. Using government numbers, more than 10 percent of the population lives in poverty, and those numbers are generous. I mean, $20,000 for a family of three is pretty drat sketchy especially if you live in a food desert and have no car. All it takes is one bad day to wipe you out. I clearly stated that if you're one bad day away from being financially wiped out, by all means skip jury duty. A lot of people just don't want to make less money for a few days though, and they don't think they should have to on basic principle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
my nerves are feeling pretty good and i'm not okay with that
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
pookel posted:This is fascinating and much more interesting than jury duty chat. I especially wonder how he was still coaching after being executed. Madkal posted:This kind of got lost in all the jury duty chat but it really is fascinating. Thanks for doing some extra digging. Now I am wondering what other athletes got mixed up in things way above their comfort zone. Thank you both. Trying to find reputable, non-academic information about non-Axis war crimes during WW2 is very difficult because it seems most of the people interested in writing about them are either Nazi apologists, or outright Neo Nazis. For example,one of the first results when you Google "Abbeville Massacre 1940" is this http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=41891 Now, while there certainly seems to be reputable information there the fact that the forums describes itself as "an apolitical forum for discussions on the Axis nations and related topics" is eyebrow raising, not to say anything of their header design. The French Wikipedia page offers more information https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_d'Abbeville Also, if google translate is right one of the victims was especially out of place quote:Leon Hirschfeld, Jew, schizophrenic, is arrested in Geel because speaking German That's not even touching on how Bell was allegedly coaching after his death, unless there was another hockey coach in Nazi Germany with the exact same name. Looks like it's just one of those mysteries lost to time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Nckdictator posted:Thank you both. Trying to find reputable, non-academic information about non-Axis war crimes during WW2 is very difficult because it seems most of the people interested in writing about them are either Nazi apologists, or outright Neo Nazis. For example,one of the first results when you Google "Abbeville Massacre 1940" is this Been a while since I read it (and actually never finished it) but Niall Ferguson's The War of the World's opening chapters mentions a few occasions where both sides executed PoW's, whether out of revenge or orders or other reasons. I haven't got the book in front of me but he goes into quite a bit of detail about French executing Germans in WW I and both Russians and Germans killing each other's PoW's quite a few times.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Avshalom posted:my nerves are feeling pretty good and i'm not okay with that Ok, here's a classic from many years ago. It's the remote destruction switches for the space shuttle. An Air Force range safety officer sat there each launch with the responsibility of destroying the shuttle (and crew) if launch went very, very wrong. It was only ever used once, when the fuel tank of the shuttle Challenger exploded during launch. The solid rocket boosters veered off uncontrolled into possibly very unsafe directions so they were remotely detonated. Here's the switches  Here's the one time they were used https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5tonZfDcvU&t=21s
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
IShallRiseAgain posted:You do realize that trial by jury is completely optional right? Lawyers choose to have a trial by jury because it's better for their client. Yeah but both sides have to agree. The defence can’t unilaterally decide to have a bench trial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Madkal posted:This kind of got lost in all the jury duty chat but it really is fascinating. Thanks for doing some extra digging. Now I am wondering what other athletes got mixed up in things way above their comfort zone. Luz Long, the German athlete who competed against Jesse Owens in the Olympics, ended up joining the Wehrmacht and died in Italy during the invasion of Sicily. http://www.lettersofnote.com/2016/08/tell-him-about-his-father.html quote:I am here, Jesse, where it seems there is only the dry sand and the wet blood. I do not fear so much for myself, my friend Jesse, I fear for my woman who is home, and my young son Karl, who has never really known his father.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Talking athletes that ended with weird/unnerving fates, I always feel really sorry for this dude. Get some issues with depression post-divorce and then BOOM, SECRET GOVERNMENT TESTING. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Blauer quote:Tennis http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/06/nyregion/388687.html http://articles.latimes.com/1987-05-06/news/mn-2486_1_chemical-warfare-agents Acid Dreams is a pretty entertaining/informative/horrifying book that I'm sure has been touched on a million times throughout this thread, ala Command and Control. The crazy loving Acid General still cracks me up though. quote:According to Major General William Creasy, chemical incapacitants went hand in glove with the strategic requirements of the Cold War. As chief officer of the Army Chemical Corps, Creasy promoted the psychochemical cause with eccentric and visionary zeal. He maintained that this type of warfare was not only feasible but tactically advantageous in certain situations. Consider, for example, the difficult task of dislodging enemy soldiers from a city inhabited by an otherwise friendly population—an industrial center perhaps, bustling with activity. Assume that the city housed numerous museums and cultural landmarks. Why blow to smithereens the best and worst alike with an old-fashioned artillery barrage? The prospect of obliterating the whole kit and caboodle seemed downright foolish to Creasy if you could get away with less.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
Methyl groups are bad news no matter where they pop up. Does it have methyl on it? Yeah, you're hosed. Doesn't even matter how you're hosed, you're just hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:Representative James Fulton (R-Pa.) was disturbed by Creasy’s remarks. He wondered if some foreign power might already be subjecting people in the United States to such agents. “How can we determine it?” Fulton asked. “What is the test to see whether we are already being subjected to them? Are we under it now?. . . Are we the rabbits and the guinea pigs?. . . How are we to know?” I feel like this bit probably should have raised a few more red flags than it apparently did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
catlord posted:I feel like this bit probably should have raised a few more red flags than it apparently did. The Frank Olson stuff is horrifying and hosed up too, but there just seems something so random and hosed up about some tennis player checking into a psychiatric hospital for post-divorce depression and just getting a death syringe. Operation Midnight Climax and the dude running it are also well known by everyone ITT I'm sure and pretty unnerving but at least in a more creepy less insta-death way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Midnight_Climax Acid Dreams posted:While looking through some old OSS files, Gottlieb discovered that marijuana had been tested on unsuspecting subjects in an effort to develop a truth serum. These experiments had been organized by George Hunter White, a tough, old-fashioned narcotics officer who ran a training school for American spies during World War II. Perhaps White would be interested in testing drugs for the CIA. As a matter of protocol Gottlieb first approached Harry Anslinger, chief of the Federal Narcotics Bureau. Anslinger was favorably disposed and agreed to “lend” one of his top men to the CIA on a part-time basis. Reading about stuff like this and Tuskegee and basically this whole wiki of horror https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States always makes me wonder what sort of crazy unbelievable poo poo might be knowingly willfully being done on the American populace that no one will find out about for like 80 years and if anyone told you you'd just think they were some nutcase
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
catlord posted:I feel like this bit probably should have raised a few more red flags than it apparently did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
it also makes me wonder about the ups and downs of working with the CIA during the Cold War to further the research of chemical warfare and espionage. On one hand it's a Seth Rogen movie featuring Zac Efron... quote:Nearly everyone was fair game, and surprise acid trips became something of an occupational hazard among CIA operatives. Such tests were considered necessary because foreknowledge would prejudice the results of the experiment. but on the other it rapidly becomes an Oliver Stone movie and then you're dead  quote:Such pranks claimed their first victim in November 1953, when a group of CIA and army technicians gathered for a three-day work retreat at a remote hunting lodge in the backwoods of Maryland. On the second day of the meeting Dr. Gottlieb spiked the after-dinner cocktails with LSD. As the drug began to take effect, Gottlieb told everyone that they had ingested a mind-altering chemical. By that time the group had become boisterous with laughter and unable to carry on a coherent conversation. the government should really be tapping TCC as chemical weapons researchers and guinea pigs
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
SLOSifl posted:Lindsay Graham balls-out on LSD would be hilarious. And you know like half of the most conservative dudes would have a gay orgy broadcast on CSPAN. Poor lil dude should just go for it
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:
That is pretty unnerving, I for one sleep like a baby after I drink coffee.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
yo rear end is grass posted:That is pretty unnerving, I for one sleep like a baby after I drink coffee.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
Coffee never kept me awake either. But I've been drinking it at night since I was a little kid. Always liked my evening coffees with my grandmas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:Coffee never kept me awake either. But I've been drinking it at night since I was a little kid. Always liked my evening coffees with my grandmas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
lol if you grandmas weren’t the wine type
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:37 |
|
|
Platystemon posted:lol if you grandmas weren’t the wine type My grandma doesn't drink. She's 91 now and still in fairly good health, so she should just start trying every mind altering substance, imo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 12:18
|
|