|
rkajdi posted:Bullshit. Both create inconsistency. A law unequally applied cannot be just by definition. The real solution is to get the unqualified chud morons out of there and have professionals do the job instead. I know this goes against the anti-intellectual movement of the day, but qualified people make better decisions than morons who don't know the subject. We see it in science and academia (or at least understand that the idiots are to be derided and ignored) so why the hell can't we see it in politics and law? If you want a change later, you can institute it from the top down and just displace the uncooperative people from the system in one fell swoop. You can't do that with juries, and will continue to gently caress minorities over far more than it will help. It's much harder to repeal laws than add new laws, we literally live in a country that has 50-state gay marriage yet where it's politically difficult to repeal unconstitutional laws criminalizing gay sex. People fighting for gay rights reform for example often had basically no recourse in the legislature and had to turn to the courts and things like jury nullification. The general populace became wary of the practice of jailing people for being gay before the cops and the courts did, while state legislatures are still not willing in some states. Just off the top of my head I know that nullification was used to stop raids on the Fire Island Pines in the late 60s for example. The notion that they should have gone to the legislature at the time and lobbied for them to repeal the sodomy law is just laughable. This is important with drug law reform as well since the "qualified people" still love the idea of ruining people's lives over weed while the "unqualified chud morons" not so much. EDIT: Also when you live in a country with an incredibly serious over-incarceration and over-criminalization issues I think policies that make it harder to prosecute things are generally good. Especially when the legislature is really, really reluctant to ever seriously address the issue. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Dec 7, 2016 |
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 19:48 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The same goes for other policies. When someone calls on the fiscal left to denounce Maoist Third-Worldists, what they're really saying is "look, the fiscal left holds such awful policies that they attract the support of deplorable extremists like those; let's see if they're even willing to pretend otherwise". Same goes for the "social left", too - when someone calls on civil rights advocates to denounce people who post "kill all white people" on Facebook, they're really just implying that anti-racism advocates are secretly laying the foundation for white genocide. No one who insists that a movement denounce some fringe group intends to actually believe the denunciation - either it'll be declared not good enough, or it'll be regarded as a thinly disguised token move that no one believes. Many, many people on here have expressed to me the opinion that as long as it's "punching up" it's acceptable. I agree that the "you must denounce these people nominally associated with you ideologically" is dumb poo poo but you ought to not explicitly condone their actions.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Can you cite actual case law? It was critically important for the LGBT rights movement as I mentioned before.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:No they aren't. It's only 12 people, and the lawyers immediately select out people who feel strongly about the issue or are similar to either side. It's the shittiest form of democracy, where anyone with an actual dog in the fight (or at least the ones who don't lie) or a level of education on the issue is selected out. Qualified professionals elected would do a better job by a long site. So then what would be your message to the 1960s gay rights activists, just wait several decades for another method of recourse? How about your message now to drug users when our elected officials still think permanently destroying their lives is the smart approach? Our politicians are dedicated to some incredibly stupid and destructive policies and in some cases the jury is literally the only recourse. I would also note that the only other major recourse in the drug war has been referendums which also depend on those uneducated rubes you hate so much. The ostensibly smarter politicians, even the Democratic ones, are still largely ardent Nancy Reagan drug warriors.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 00:09
|
|