411–420 of 514 posts
> “The family defines closure as Marcellus being allowed to live,” the petition stated. “Marcellus’ execution is not necessary.” Imagine we lived in that world.
Aside the fact that the death penalty shouldn't exist in the first place, the victim's family should be able to veto it (automatic commutation to a life sentence).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I prefer to decide for myself how biased the candidates > have my fellow citizens vote as well. I find those positions at odds to one another. Personally I don't want prosecutors to be neither appointed by elected officials nor elected. Though, I am more digging into that you think you might get a choice when voting. Re-read what I wrote. I believe the grammar correct and it is clear. Though, I'll illustrate with a…
Your point is completely out of scope of what's being discussed. My comment was a reply to a comment saying "It's beyond stupid to elect people who are in charge of upholding laws and prosecute crimes." My argument is entirely and only an argument that prosecutors should be elected instead of appointed. All this other stuff about language is not relevant and I don't care about your thought experiment because it's com…
My point is that appointments and elections are almost the same thing, nearly a distinction without a difference. Don't like the appointments, then vote for a different person. Bit of a distinction of representative democracy vs direct. Not necessarily that different. Almost entirely equally broken IMO.
> situation where one of the 10 people gets to pick the prosecutor!
That is not at all the simplification. We could change it that the 10 people are voting for someone to do the appointment of a prosecutor. Or we could flip it to a real world example where someone is in eastern oregon voting conservative, or someone lives in 1930s rural south as a minority.
The majority rule can lead to a bad path. Notably authoritarian regimes where the prosecutor promises to go after the minorities. Which has its examples historically throughout the world, including the US
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Meanwhile the democrats did nothing except ask me for more money and continue to take L after L I agree with you, except to me it's far more insidious - they used the threat of things like roe v wade being overturned and reproductive rights being taken away to drive donations and voter turnout, thus incentivizing themselves to never actually deal with that looming problem.
Good point! I'm just so frustrated by it because while I don't agree with their positions on basically anything, the republican party appears to do a good job furthering the interests of their voters. I know they're less diverse etc. etc. but it just sucks to see
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, that's silly and not at all the same thing as a prosecutor being accountable to the electorate as a whole. In my perspective, it is exactly the same thing when you disagree with the electorate. Which is why (personnally) I don't want you, or any electorate choosing prosecutors. If every time you voted for a prosecutor, and every time your vote was in a minority, would you still feel you had a say in the bias of…
> In my perspective, it is exactly the same thing when you disagree with the electorate. In a democracy, you can argue with and convince your fellow citizens to change the law and how it is enforced. If a majority doesn't agree, you won't get your way. This is not a good system, but it is better than any other system. If there were some other alternative that guaranteed that everyone always gets a completely unbiased…
> If every time you voted for a prosecutor, and every time your vote was in a minority, would you still feel you had a say in the bias of the prosecutor?
You said previously at least by voting you had a say in the bias. Is your answer to the above a genuine "yes" because you feel there was opportunity to lobby other citizens?
I don't agree that there is necessarily even that possibility. Thus my position is that elected or appointed by an elected official are equally broken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Formally codifying abortion was not a popular issue among voters in 09. In other words, you're somewhat right, it wasn't important to them because it wasn't important to voters. People seem to think that this issue has always had the support it has now.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This downplays the GOP’s role. Their decades-long plan, including stacking the courts, reveals just how hateful and ruthless they are in pursuing their agenda. While Democrats could have done more, obstacles like the filibuster and narrow majorities made passing protections difficult. The bigger issue is the GOP’s deliberate and depraved effort to strip away rights. Don’t give them a pass on it by blaming others.
I'm sorry but this is such a loser take. You're mad at your opponents for playing the game? I would hate to be on your team in any kind of competition
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a more thorough definition: > Evidence that is not within the personal knowledge of a witness, such as testimony regarding statements made by someone other than the witness, and that therefore may be inadmissible to establish the truth of a particular contention because the accuracy of the evidence cannot be verified through cross-examination. Tying the two together, basically it would be anything that can't b…
That's a take, but it's far from reality. Witnesses are a central evidence in most cases. When the parties are present for cross examination it's not hearsay.
That's exactly what I just said.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would think the far more compelling detail is the one you overlooked: > Their statements were inconsistent with their own prior statements, with each other’s accounts, and with the crime scene evidence, and none of the information they provided could be independently verified. Not only were the two known liars, but their accounts could not be verified, and they conflict with each other as well as the existing evide…
The quote > neither revealed any information that was not either included in media accounts about the case or already known to the police. from The Innocence Project seems carefully worded to imply that they didn't say anything that mattered, while still leaving open that they provided information that the police had, but which had not be publicly released.
This is hard to fake and seems like pretty compelling evidence that the informant is telling the truth.
https://governor.mo.gov/press-releases/archive/state-carry-o...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every country has populations which are overrepresented in crime... did you really just say "They have less crime because they don't have blacks"?!?
Yes. That's what the statistics say. If you exclude shootings by blacks and Hispanics, America's gun killing rate is similar to high-gun-ownership western European countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That case is even worse as it rested fully on the testimony of the other robber, which he made to get a lesser sentence and later rescinded: > Prosecutors had no forensic evidence connecting Allah to the shooting. Surveillance footage at the store showed two masked men with guns, but they were not identifiable. The state’s case rested on testimony from Allah’s friend and co-defendant, Steven Golden, who was also char…
> Golden said he agreed to plead guilty and testify when prosecutors assured him he would not face the death penalty or a life sentence – a deal that was not disclosed to the jury.
If your friend is wrongly facing the death penalty and you know they’re innocent there’s no reason to not name the person you claim is the real shooter.