Too many of the potential jurors said that even if the defendant, Elisa Meadows, was guilty, they were unwilling to issue the $500 fine a city attorney was seeking, said Ren Rideauxx, Meadows’ attorney.

  • pinkdrunkenelephants
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    5 months ago

    I’ll take the bait. Blackstone was wrong and no society can actually function under that kind of a premise.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I’ll bite:
      First of all can we acknowledge that every system is going to be flawed? You’re either going to have innocent people convicted and sent to jail, or guilty people set free. Likely you’ll have some of both.

      With that in mind, what do you consider an acceptable ratio of innocent people convicted in order to make sure guilty people are also convicted? As many as it takes?

      • pinkdrunkenelephants
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        The claim I’m making is that systemic flaws are unavoidable and therefore Blackstone’s formulation is a pile of horseshit.

        It literally doesn’t even matter what system I think would be better. I claimed that societies can’t function under Blackstone’s formulation and our present circumstances prove that point handily.

        Just because you are happy with it doesn’t mean it’s good or that other people should just accept it.

        • hangonasecond@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          You’re not really making a point, you’re making a claim. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but you haven’t really said any reason why you think society can’t function when they value protecting the rights of the innocent over guaranteeing 100% of the guilty are punished.

          When you say “our present circumstances prove that point”, are you saying that all of society’s problems can be linked to jury nullification? Or to the fact your jurisdiction is too light handed with criminals, or felons, or both? It’s a very bold, very vague claim, considering it’s well studied that rehabilitative/educational and not punitive measures are more effective at reducing crime, so making the current system more heavy handed doesn’t seem to be the answer, if one exists.

          • pinkdrunkenelephants
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Yeah, people make claims in debate, not points.

            I don’t list reasons because it’s self-evident and very blatantly obvious why. Go to the news subs on any Lemmy server and you’ll see why.

            You’re just angry I am not giving you the fight that you want because you saw me saying something that opposes your little political agenda, and so you came here to proselytize.

            Literally no one said anything about punishment at all but here you are, peddling your enabling crap, just like I knew one of you would. You’re here proselytizing, like a Jehovah’s Witness.

            Well, I’m not playing along. I said societies can’t function under Blackstone’s formulation and my stance is not gonna change because you don’t like it. You can’t bully me into submitting to your dogmatic cult bullshit.

            • hangonasecond@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Dogmatic cult bullshit? A fight? Do you realise I’m not the original person you replied to? I’m not proselytising, I just want to know what your stance is because I’m curious. People don’t make claims in debates, you’re meant to use facts to support a point of view and identify gaps in opposing arguments.

              I’m also not really here to change your stance. I don’t have a political agenda, I have an opinion, and I asked genuine questions out of a desire to have that opinion challenged and maybe reconsider my own point of view. You don’t need to “play along”, you chose to post on a discussion forum and should expect to have your post discussed.

              The reason I brought up punishment is because it’s super relevant to the idea of innocence and guilt in the world most of us live in today - one where guilt is punished. I’m not some Blackstone worshipper, I know literally nothing about them as a historical figure and couldn’t have attributed the quote before today.

              I’m sorry if you’re having a bad day, or if the way I’ve said what I wanted to say came across as aggressive or insincere, I was intending to ask legitimate questions and maybe, in this corner of the internet, a handful of people could have walked away with a better understanding of others.

              Also, I appreciate that you’ve since edited your original comment to say “claim”. It would’ve been good if you’d admitted to your mistake, instead of assuming I was out to get you.