Live data from Hacker News

The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

daviddfriedman.substack.com

131–140 of 160 posts

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#131

[flagged]

> Dare I say, people should engage that part of their brain with everything (...) What about the monetary system, surely we could all take a step back and anaylze the mechanics of a system that plays a 50% role in all economic transactions This is a great way for one to learn about Moloch - the by far greatest threat humanity is facing. Moloch is the personified generalization of all multiplayer games, where the payo…

> problems we seem unable to solve

The biggest problem is people saying this, that we're unable to succeed. They are serving our enemies - spreading despair is so obviously a bad idea that it's a fundamental of psyops (not that the parent is doing psyops; my point is that it's what an enemy would do).

And it's false; it's transparently false if we examine the evidence for a moment. History is filled with people sacrificing themselves, widely, for the greater good. The simple example is warfare, but lots of people have low-paying or lower-paying jobs because they want to do good, contribute to the world.

It's good news - the news is actually good (I know that totally violates social norms to say!): The good people far outnumber the bad, they have the power, the ability; human nature is on their side; they just need to wake up and get going - stop sitting around pop-theorizing about despair - and many of the worst problems will be solved.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#132
post #108
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not common to reopen court cases if the jury finds a person innocent. You can certainly reopen court cases where someone was found guilty, but that's not double jeopardy.

Juries make guilty/not guilty findings, not innocence.

What's the technical distinction between "not guilty" and "innocent?"

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#133
post #108
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not common to reopen court cases if the jury finds a person innocent. You can certainly reopen court cases where someone was found guilty, but that's not double jeopardy.

Juries make guilty/not guilty findings, not innocence.

You’re a statistician, aren’t you?

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> no bearing over gun ownership Except they have great sway over definitions. They dictate what "arms" actually means. They dictate whether that word includes entire classes of weapons. The court currently protects only guns, but a small reinterpretation of "arms" could easily expand it to include bladed or explosive weapons, both of which are not currently protected. Does the 2nd cover flamethrowers? SCOTUS gets to…

The current scope of "arms" does include most conventional weapons but intersects with other boring regulatory considerations, especially at the State level. Anyone that can buy a gun can also fill out the paperwork to buy or manufacture much heavier weaponry. Most people don't because exercising the right is a headache. You can't drive a main battle tank on a public street or store a surface-to-air missile system in…

Your friends were able to purchase new machine guns? Not old ones that were grandfathered in, or modded to become semi-auto?

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The case you're referring to is Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993). The relevant excerpt is in Justice Antonin Scalia's concurrence [1]: > There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction. ... > With any luck, we shall avo…

> Four months after the Court's ruling, Herrera was executed. His last words were: "I am innocent, innocent, innocent. . . . I am an innocent man, and something very wrong is taking place tonight." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrera_v._Collins#Subsequent_...

Seems like if they believed he was innocent they should’ve contacted the executive themselves to request a pardon.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#136
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is that "factual innocence is not a reason to let the convict goes, because somehow magically knowing an innocent person is in prison makes justice system more trustworthy" supreme court gem. There should be obvious difference between "minor new development" and "major new finding". Likewise, there should be obvious difference between "potentially innocent person is in prison" and "prosecutor wants new attempt…

The case you're referring to is Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993). The relevant excerpt is in Justice Antonin Scalia's concurrence [1]: > There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction. ... > With any luck, we shall avo…

Clemency is a wonderful tradition, but I get the impression that those who hold that power tend to view it as purely prerogative with no moral obligation. Which is too bad, because it certainly is meant to be justice’s last resort.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current scope of "arms" does include most conventional weapons but intersects with other boring regulatory considerations, especially at the State level. Anyone that can buy a gun can also fill out the paperwork to buy or manufacture much heavier weaponry. Most people don't because exercising the right is a headache. You can't drive a main battle tank on a public street or store a surface-to-air missile system in…

>> The current scope of "arms" does include most conventional weapons but intersects with other boring regulatory considerations If those other conventional weapons were covered as "arms" under the 2nd, then those other boring regulations don't matter. The fact that those regs even exist is because so many weapons are specifically not covered as arms. I can own an AR-15. I cannot own a switchblade. I can own a 9mm se…

Amusingly the well regulated militia subordinate clause makes it very clear that the 2nd amendment is explicitly intended to protect “weapons of war.”

Sadly, since the Dick act, Congress has defined “well-regulated” as “yeah, whatever.” Nevertheless, since that was Congressional intent it satisfies the well-regulated requirement.

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#138
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The supreme court, stacked or not, has no bearing over gun ownership, nor does congress. "Congress shall make no law […] the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." supercedes both of them.

This isn't true under current US jurisprudence: if a law that infringes on a fundamental constitutional right can be shown to be narrowly tailored to, and the least restrictive means of achieving, a compelling state interest, then it passes strict scrutiny and is considered constitutional.

Isn't that for rights though? Surely these explicit limits on congressional authority are more fundamental?

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#139

>> That raises an obvious question: If they saw the problem with torture, why did they continue to employ it? I was part of a lecture covering a case where US police had tortured out a false confession. The prof asked a Canadian student if such a thing would happen in Canada. "No. The RCMP wouldn't bother. If they need a confession they would just forge one. Forgery is much easier than torturing someone."

Canadian police have form. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatoon_freezing_deaths

Re: The origin of the law of torture: A cautionary tale

#140
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point, I think it has less to do with a belief in a complete gun ban, which seems an absurd thing to even contemplate. It's more that absolutely nothing is done at all. Not even Sandy Hook produced any change whatsoever. A prominent argument was that the entire thing was a fake for the purpose of banning guns, tacitly admitting that reality did merit some kind of change. So at this point it's more of an indic…

The supreme court, stacked or not, has no bearing over gun ownership, nor does congress. "Congress shall make no law […] the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." supercedes both of them.

Under that wildly-expansive theory, people in prison for murder must be allowed to carry loaded guns around.
Post reply on HN