Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
That still leaves Germany, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Finland... I could go on...
Point is, there are plenty of countries with fair and generally well-functioning legal systems that don't involve juries.
And what I would replace it with? I wouldn't - just throw out the jury and let the judges make the decisions. This is how it's done in many countries (including those mentioned above) so I don't see why you're putting this as a hypothetical "would" question.
edited 15th Jul '13 4:45:01 AM by MidnightRambler
Mache dich, mein Herze, rein...That still leaves Germany, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Finland... I could go on...
Point is, there are plenty of countries with fair and generally well-functioning legal systems that don't involve juries.
Perhaps. But I don't accept any of those countries you listed are one of them.
edited 15th Jul '13 4:49:48 AM by joeyjojo
hashtagsarestupidWait, are you saying Germany has Kangaroo Courts? Sweden? Finland?
edited 15th Jul '13 4:52:58 AM by MidnightRambler
Mache dich, mein Herze, rein...I dunno, what you're saying could be loosely interpreted as saying that any system that uses Jurors is a Kangaroo Court.
"Yup. That tasted purple."It sometimes feels like that to me, yes. But like I said, I know it's more complex than that.
Mache dich, mein Herze, rein...Wait, what exactly precludes Germany, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Finland from qualifying for a fair and free court?
I don't know about the others but I have never heard anything atypically(meaning worse than what would be expected from any other first world democracy) bad about the Finnish, Swedish, German and Danish courts.
South Africa also doesn't have juries IIRC. A panel of judges for major crimes is a far better choice then juries. A lot harder to confuse several legal professionals then 12 civs.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?Fun fact:The Governor of Texas is considered one of the weaker state governor positions incidentally, compared to others. See Wikipedia for the historical background. Another fun fact: Abbott was partially paralyzed in 1984 when a tree splintered at its base and struck him in the back. Abbott then won millions in a lawsuit against the homeowner and has since become an advocate for limiting the amount that can be won in very type of civil suits that he filed.
I don't suppose the guy who wanted to challenge the constitutionality of the filibuster in court got anywhere did he?
DumboI'm going to Thread Hop back a week or two to the House-passed farm bill. At the time I didn't realize what exactly it was about; Krugman's column
enlightened me. So, Republicans want to keep subsidizing agribusiness but cut all food aid to the hungry. It never ceases to astonish me and I should know better.
edited 15th Jul '13 7:27:26 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"They're trying to sever it so that they can get their subsidies to their big corporate buddies but treat food aid as a separate topic that they can vote against. Republicans want to starve children. Literally.
edited 15th Jul '13 7:35:54 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I know but that still means that anybody who votes Republican while receiving food aid is an idiot. They should have figured this out a while ago but now it's becoming even more obvious.
edit: I don't think starving children is the goal. They just don't care if they happen to do it.
edited 15th Jul '13 7:38:32 AM by Kostya
It's not phrased that way, but it comes out to the same thing in the end. "Make those lazy poor people work for their food. Handing it out to them just encourages them."
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Fighteer, I'm curious about your view on Midnight Rambler's statements on Trial by Jury:
Remember, he's from Germany where they don't have Trial by Jury, and instead use an Inquisitorial System
where Judges decide the result of a case.
edited 15th Jul '13 7:49:09 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnI am trying to avoid commenting on the Zimmerman case. Sensational trials make bad case law. I think that the prosecution faced an insurmountable burden of proof given the available evidence and so the verdict doesn't surprise me at all. I think that Stand Your Ground is a horribly broken law and desperately needs reform; hopefully now there will be more of an incentive. On the other hand, from what I read the trial didn't invoke Stand Your Ground at all.
As for trial by jury, I was giving my thoughts earlier about it in a separate chat. It's not just "trial by jury", it's "trial by jury of one's peers". The idea is very specifically that jurors should be people from the community, who share its standards and who are not legal experts or trained logicians. They can apply common sense; they can sympathize with the plaintiff or defendant; they can be appealed to by things other than the raw facts of the case.
This of course has caused the legal system to evolve to play on their emotions and sympathies in addition to or perhaps above the facts. The "of one's peers" thing has also meant historically that it's very easy for a community whose "standards" include prejudiced attitudes to reinforce that with verdicts, but I've also heard of plenty of examples of prejudiced judges.
My one experience with jury duty, however, doesn't bear out the idea that we're a bunch of emotional fools who ignore logic. The case involved a dearth of evidence, some disinterested witnesses, and a defendant who was off his meds. The defense tried to play on his lack of responsibility, but my fellow jurors and I observed, properly, that the prosecution had failed to present compelling evidence that a crime had actually occurred. In this case, we did our job better than the attorneys involved.
edited 15th Jul '13 8:09:33 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"On principle, I don't have a problem with Stand Your Ground laws. I think they should be the norm. If someone pulls a gun on you, you should not be legally obligated to run away or beg for mercy and get shot and killed for your effort. Defending yourself against a violent assault shouldn't be considered wrong and immoral; it should be considered a standard of behavior. There are actually very few rights I would consider "God-given", but the right to protect yourself and/or others from physical harm is one of those, and the fact that this is even such a controversial topic makes me die a little inside. More and more, we are becoming a people that sympathizes with the criminal and persecutes the victim.
Now, I don't know how that relates to the Zimmerman case, because I'm not sure I fully understand the Zimmerman case. My understanding is this.
Zimmerman saw Martin wandering around inside his gated community after dark. He called the police, reporting that Martin looked suspicious, but Martin was not presently performing any criminal activity at the time. Police arrived to find that Zimmerman had shot Martin. Zimmerman had bloody lacerations on the back of his head and was bleeding from the nose. He claimed that Martin had attacked him, and he had shot Martin in self-defense.
Is this correct? As it stands, I see nothing against Zimmerman in this case. He was attacked and defended himself accordingly. Am I missing something?
edited 15th Jul '13 8:20:23 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.You left out that the dispatcher said they didn't need Zimmerman to follow him.
edit: I still blame Zimmerman for everything because even if Martin attacked him Zimmerman was the one that followed an unarmed man around at night. Think about what must have been going through his mind. He's walking through a neighborhood late at night and realizes a man is following him with a gun. Any sane person would think they're about to be mugged. I also read that there's no DNA from Martin on Zimmerman's gun or clothes and Martin doesn't have any of Zimmerman's DNA under his fingernails. I'd expect stuff like that to be present if there was a violent altercation like Zimmerman described.
edited 15th Jul '13 8:26:14 AM by Kostya
Okay, I missed that part.
So when Zimmerman called the police, the dispatcher told him that following Martin was unnecessary. He did so anyway, and Martin attacked him, and Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense.
This doesn't change the picture much. Do we know how long Zimmerman continued to monitor Martin? Was he just watching him, or did he actually approach him to talk? What happened between "Dispatch tells Zimmerman not to follow" and "Martin attacks Zimmerman"?
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
We don't know what happened between them talking and Martin being killed because the only word we have to go on is Zimmerman's and he's not going to implicate himself. See my edit for some other stuff. I'm going to try and find the source for the DNA claim.
edit: Here's something about the DNA.
edit 2: Okay that might not matter. It does say Zimmerman's DNA was found in the blood on Martin's clothes which means the injuries to his head weren't self inflicted after the fact. Technically Zimmerman could have done that but I doubt he thought that far ahead.
edited 15th Jul '13 8:31:21 AM by Kostya
Why would it be manslaughter if he was defending himself from a violent assault? This still sounds like an open and shut "justified self-defense".
edited 15th Jul '13 8:39:26 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.

Given that Jury trials are possible in Austria, Belgium, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom I'd say it's a bit unfair to say "most of Europe".
And again, I must ask. What would you replace it with?
edited 15th Jul '13 4:42:01 AM by Deadbeatloser22
"Yup. That tasted purple."