Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

judiciary.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 646 posts

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#301

Post by AnHonestComment »

Uberphallus wrote: post #287
rjbwork wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's not how they ask. It's usually something like "would you have a problem convicting the defendant of the crime they are accused of if you were convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that they had, in fact, committed said crime?" They don't say "Do you know what jury nullification is?"

Keyword: would (not will). No perjury. And if they use "will", it's perfectly normal to wonder why one would ask such a strange question. It would totally read as "we're gonna find a case to test you on that teehee".

Uh, people playing games with the court by pretending they don’t understand a basic question scares me.

I hope you’re never on a jury: you don’t seem like you take it seriously and you should when it impacts other people’s lives.

“Would” is a form of “will”, and haggling tense to “avoid” perjury is deeply dishonest — and probably still perjury.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/would

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#302

Post by mindslight »

rjbwork wrote: post #254
Uberphallus wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You lie, if they accuse you of perjury then you say "I googled it after I was asked".

But that's not how they ask. It's usually something like "would you have a problem convicting the defendant of the crime they are accused of if you were convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that they had, in fact, committed said crime?" They don't say "Do you know what jury nullification is?"

I agree on the general indirection they use. However my answer to the specific question you posed is "no, I'd have no problem". But if it were eg a drug charge, then I wouldn't consider the relevant criminal law to be constitutional (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for starters), and thus the defendant is innocent because there is no crime to have been committed. My judgment wouldn't be to save one sympathetic person from being convicted of what is otherwise a legitimate crime, but rather over the validity of the law itself.

In general they will ask you a bunch of questions to trip up anyone who might be too clever, but they can't ask about jury nullification directly (lest they give anyone else ideas). If you answer in the expected common sense way, and don't boast about your reasoning, it's going to be very hard for them to claim perjury.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#303

Post by [deleted] »

djsumdog wrote: post #280
nix23 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bin Laden had no court hearing. He was killed by a special commando. It really surprises me that anyone thinks that this has something todo with justice. BTW: No saying it's right or wrong, but it's definitely something else than justice or a Curt-order.

Well, Obama claimed he sent in a team to kill him and dump his body in the ocean, during an election year, even though the French intelligence agencies said he was probably dead for at least 7 years. That seal team also died in a helicopter crash later, but it wasn't "the same seal team." Honestly I don't understand how Americans still trust our news sources today.

[deleted]

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#304

Post by chalst »

kjakm wrote: post #227
ur-whale wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the UK at least judge's are for the most part demonstrably non-political. This is not about UK judges being political, but rather about judges being pressured by governments to do what's convenient for the government. In this particular case, the outcome is surprising.

If a judge can be pressured by the government they're political. Judges (in the UK) have nothing to gain by being political. They aren't elected politically, the roles are based on merit.

Do you mean that the career of judges is never affected by politics? I think, e.g., that appointments to SCOTUS are an obvious counterexample.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#305

Post by randylahey »

Chris2048 wrote: post #262
lmg643 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we sure that Assange is better off in the UK? Reports from other sources suggest he is being kept in terrible conditions in UK as well. https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/julian-assange-is-kept-u... >> "Each day Julian is woken at 5 am, handcuffed, put in holding cells, stripped naked, and x-rayed. He is transported 1.5 hours each way in what feels like a vertical coffin in a claustrophobic van,” Morris said. >>…

> Each day Julian is ... x-rayed Wait, what? This can't be true - daily x-rays would guarantee cell/DNA damage.

Could just be sloppy, inaccurate writing. But yeah that would be pretty bad.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#306

Post by nix23 »

djsumdog wrote: post #280
nix23 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bin Laden had no court hearing. He was killed by a special commando. It really surprises me that anyone thinks that this has something todo with justice. BTW: No saying it's right or wrong, but it's definitely something else than justice or a Curt-order.

Well, Obama claimed he sent in a team to kill him and dump his body in the ocean, during an election year, even though the French intelligence agencies said he was probably dead for at least 7 years. That seal team also died in a helicopter crash later, but it wasn't "the same seal team." Honestly I don't understand how Americans still trust our news sources today.

>dump his body in the ocean

Yeah that's a bit crazy if you ask me.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#307

Post by AlexandrB »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #230
h0l0cube wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's particularly disappointing is that Obama was elected after promising to end US military operations in the Middle East, and did much the opposite. Bush could at least be said to be doing what was expected of him, in continuing the legacy of his father. Voters should really be holding their leaders to account the fiscal and moral costs of these wars, especially given their strategic objectives haven't been met.…

> in continuing the legacy of his father. And retaliating for the 9/11 attacks, of course.

It's possible to make this argument about Afghanistan, but Iraq was completely unrelated to 9/11.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#309

Post by HideousKojima »

Chris2048 wrote: post #262
lmg643 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we sure that Assange is better off in the UK? Reports from other sources suggest he is being kept in terrible conditions in UK as well. https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/julian-assange-is-kept-u... >> "Each day Julian is woken at 5 am, handcuffed, put in holding cells, stripped naked, and x-rayed. He is transported 1.5 hours each way in what feels like a vertical coffin in a claustrophobic van,” Morris said. >>…

> Each day Julian is ... x-rayed Wait, what? This can't be true - daily x-rays would guarantee cell/DNA damage.

I think they meant put through a metal detector? Assange was put on suicide watch (whether justifiedly or not I do not know) so presumably they're checking for weapons he could harm himself with, still seems like overkill though.

Re: USA vs. Julian Assange Judgment

#310

Post by rafram »

chalst wrote: post #304
kjakm wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a judge can be pressured by the government they're political. Judges (in the UK) have nothing to gain by being political. They aren't elected politically, the roles are based on merit.

Do you mean that the career of judges is never affected by politics? I think, e.g., that appointments to SCOTUS are an obvious counterexample.

How’s the US Supreme Court relevant to whether UK judges are political?
Post reply on HN