301–310 of 380 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see what they mean, but still doesn't seem good. I would assume "big brained" witness especially defendants are told by their lawyers to shut up for similar reasons, too.
Defendants often don't testify at all, it's impossible for them to be impartial and generally they can only hurt themselves. They have the presumption of innocence and they don't have to say a word to establish that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of my philosophy professors was excluded from jury selection, and happened to run into the lawyer who excluded him shortly after in the bathroom, and asked why. The lawyer said it was because he wrote Philosophical Quarterly on his questionnaire, and that he routinely excludes people like my professor who are highly educated. Why? my professor asked. Because you don't listen to the lawyers or the judge, he was to…
What assures them that non "Big brain" people won't do the same thing? I think for most people it would more interesting running through the scenarios in your head, instead of listening to other people (lawyers) speak.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of my philosophy professors was excluded from jury selection, and happened to run into the lawyer who excluded him shortly after in the bathroom, and asked why. The lawyer said it was because he wrote Philosophical Quarterly on his questionnaire, and that he routinely excludes people like my professor who are highly educated. Why? my professor asked. Because you don't listen to the lawyers or the judge, he was to…
It sounds like he's basically saying that jury should be pro forma, rather than actually mattering.
But here's the thing: their decisions, ideally, should be made on the basis of the evidence presented to them, their judgement of the credibility of the witnesses, and the instructions of the judge in how to map the facts as they determine them, to the law as described to them.
We shouldn't be okay with a juror voting guilty because of the defendent's race; we shouldn't be okay with someone who says "I'm just going to flip a coin"; I'm not sure it's a bad thing to exclude people who, in the experience of the lawyers trying the case, don't pay attention and invent their own rationales out of whole cloth and make an irrational decision by the standards of the legal reasoning the trial is supposed to provide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly, there's another child comment, flagged and dead [edit: it has been resurrected], that says simply, "Sh...no-one cares about men." It's not a great comment, as it lacks substance, but it reflects something real and important. Sexual abuse is to women as police violence is to black people. These classes of people are affected more (far more - perhaps 2x?) than others, but that doesn't mean others aren't…
It is about power, and in the US African-American and women (and LGBTQ and others) are widely discriminated against, and thus widely lack power. White people are much safer around police because they have power in the legal system (generally speaking about the entire country); they can protect themselves. An African-American teenager complaining about police abuse isn't likely to get far. Women complaining about sexu…
This is true statistically, but I think OP's point is that statistics should not be used to dismiss individual experiences. Daniel Shaver was white, for example. Cheye Calvo was a white mayor when his house was raided (speaking of power!).
Thing is, police has too much power relative to the vast majority of citizens. The delta varies drastically between different population groups, but it's "too much" for all of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mike Pence rule. Don't ever be alone with a vulnerable person without a neutral third party being present, it wreaks havoc on the threat-detection instinct. As the saying goes, "you're not paranoid if someone really is out to get you."
Shocking that this is getting upvotes. The only way to treat this as gospel is to never be present with another woman alone. That the tech industry is so inept with opposite gender interactions that they have adopted tactics from religious zealot evangelicals is APALLING. Treat people as humans. Regardless of gender or sexuality.
I might find the intentions dubious, but I can't argue with the results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, it obviously changed over time, and is no longer in effect today. Hadrian was quite late in Roman history, far closer to its collapse than its founding.
> far closer to its collapse than its founding Sorry, this isn't really an important point, but I found it quite implausible so I checked. Hadrian ruled until 165 years after the founding of Rome. It continued for another 257 years. Roman empire: 27 BC – AD 395 (as a unified entity) Hadrian: was Roman emperor from 117 to 138 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A professional Jury opens up avenues for corruption. Maybe someday we can simulate human brains well enough to run the markovs on governance ideas to see if it's worth it.
> A professional Jury opens up avenues for corruption Wouldn't the same logic reject professional judges and attorneys?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly, there's another child comment, flagged and dead [edit: it has been resurrected], that says simply, "Sh...no-one cares about men." It's not a great comment, as it lacks substance, but it reflects something real and important. Sexual abuse is to women as police violence is to black people. These classes of people are affected more (far more - perhaps 2x?) than others, but that doesn't mean others aren't…
> The dead comment is right: no-one cares about men. I will go further and say that its a deeply evil thing, and I fear for my 2-year-old son. This is a real fear, not a construction, and it should be okay to share the concern in a public forum without being attacked for saying something I'm not. But I know it will happen, anyway, because you cannot fight the tide. As men, our expected place in society is to contain…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can be done with a noninvasive blood test of the mother. I am a firm proponent of mandatory testing so fathers aren’t financially responsible for children that aren’t theirs (without their knowledge and consent). Historically, if a father later determines they're not the biological parent, family court will still stick them with child support until the child is 18 (or even older, sometimes requiring college suppor…
What will that accomplish? If a putative father is already suspicious (and doesn’t want to be a father), sure, then having a NIPT would make sense. But there is already an avenue for that. You would want to make that mandatory for all pregnancies? Not everyone wants to know that information and having a mandatory test could force people (fathers) into situations they don’t want to be in. Kids are more than a financia…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parental testing should be mandatory at birth perhaps for these issues. Or at least if someone is going to go claim child support.
The father - and should be - is the one who raises the child. It is for this reason that (in the US) "father" of record is always the husband unless it is explicitly questioned and investigated. Assuming we're talking about a happy family with two eager parents, what is helped by investigating the child's genetic "paternity," when the father is right there holding the baby?