I seem to recall that the jury is responsible only for the verdict, and the judge decides the punishment. But then again, I'm not american.
Like the guilt phase, the jury can also be involved in the penalty phase. A very notable recent example would be the Jodi Arias trail The jury deadlocked in the penalty phase with 8 to 4 in favor of death.
Because not all mileage would necessarily be within the state. Even though your idea is a bad one, I do agree that it is a far better solution than tracking people.
Other than the fact that a suggestion is not an enforceable law...
It has that effect though. Unless a person has the resources to defend themselves, laws are what law enforcement says they are. Try to cite Bill of Rights protections to law enforcement and they either assume you're a nut or part of a militia.
Even if defendants ultimately prevail, the damage has been done and a chilling effect is almost always created.
You are confusing liquor laws.. They have almost nothing to do with morality but are mostly in place to protect the distributors - pretty much the same thing as what the car dealerships are doing. Some of the bluest of states have the most draconian liquor laws.
While it is true that "blue laws" have been used to restrict alcohol sales as well, but again, those are applied in non "bible-thumper" states and cities as well.
Everything is perfectly fine if they send the picture encrypted, and keep both hackers and insiders away from all stored pictures
The problem with that is that both the encrypted data and the key would reside with them.
They could encrypt the photo, send the key to the recipient and then delete the key from the server. The recepient's SnapChat client would have the encryption key so all of the functionality would remain in place.
On the basis of the statements in the video, it's not clear if that's true. Consider the case where you're guilty and you get some leniency for cooperating. If you lawyer up right away, and eventually your lawyer shows up and you "cooperate" through your lawyer, will the police be as eager to tell the judge that you deserve leniency for cooperating?
That sort of thing doesn't happen anyway. That's just an interrogation method used by interrogators to incentivize a person to confess. In many cases, the person may even confess to something they haven't even done.
As others have pointed out many times in this thread, the police don't have any hand in sentencing - even with a guilty plea.
Cops putting in a good word with the judge doesn't even work on shows that you based your research on like Law & Order. Even they portray it as an empty promise.
Are you sure audio is part of the DVI standard? I'm not challenging you, but just curious where audio is located in the standard. Everything I've found indicates that the Digiital Visual Interface (DVI) is designed for visual interfaces. I'm aware of some devices that utilize audio over DVI, but aren't those extensions of the standard?
Unless the US is a totally fucked up setup, the police counties don't actually get the payout for traffic violations
Unfortunately they do - that is the root of the problem. It's why the police tend to focus on crimes that are revenue generating and ignore those that are not (e.g. robberies, vandalism, etc).
You misread what was posted. The point was that anything said to the police on your own behalf cannot be entered into evidence by your defense. The police, however, can enter anything you've said if they feel that it is incriminating.
Essentially, your words to the police cannot help and will most likely hurt you.
Professor Duane said "It CANNOT help if you talk to the police". The professor and the cop are saying opposite things, whether they realized it or not, and that's what people keep missing.
No they didn't - that is what you are missing. The officer just pointed out some situations where a person didn't get arrested/convicted due to speaking to the police.
There is no evidence that they would have been worse off long term by consulting an attorney first. There was a high risk, however, that speaking to the police about an crime without an attorney would lead to their life being left in shambles.
Professor Duane said "It CANNOT help if you talk to the police". Officer Bruch gave multiple real-life examples from his own career of people who helped themselves by talking to the police. Do you think Officer Bruch was lying or was Professor Duane wrong?
You're constructing a false dichotomy. The people that Officer Bruch referred to that were "helped" may have ended up in an even better situation if they had not talked to the police without an attorney's advice. They engaged in a high risk activity and got lucky.
By your logic, sharing needles is not a high risk situation, since some people have done it without getting sick.
Lawyers are not necessary in every situation, but should be readily consulted as soon as they are needed, and not a moment later.
A person being questioned by the police does not have the ability to determine when an attorney is needed. Police are very good at interrogation and getting people to hang themselves legally - even if they are innocent.
It's a common tool for the police to tell suspects that if they just admit to a crime, that it is no big deal and they can home tonight before their parents, spouse or employer finds out about it. Next thing you know, a person admits to something they didn't even do and is doing 25 years in prison.
Slashdot Mirror
I seem to recall that the jury is responsible only for the verdict, and the judge decides the punishment. But then again, I'm not american.
Like the guilt phase, the jury can also be involved in the penalty phase. A very notable recent example would be the Jodi Arias trail The jury deadlocked in the penalty phase with 8 to 4 in favor of death.
This has nothing to do with "division of labor" - it's about juries having some "skin in the game".
Too many juries convict on very questionable reasons and non-compelling evidence.
So you think that Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Michigan and New Jersey are Bible Belt states?
Check out the list of dry communities in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dry_communities_by_U.S._state
True, but dry and very restrictive counties/municipalities aren't unique to the bible belt - plenty of that in blue states as well.
But your idea doesn't involve tracking people or increasing the bureaucracy.
Because not all mileage would necessarily be within the state. Even though your idea is a bad one, I do agree that it is a far better solution than tracking people.
This has absolutely nothing to do with oil companies. This is all about the car dealership lobby.
The car dealership lobby tends to have a lot of power in state politics - especially in states with large rural and suburban populations.
Other than the fact that a suggestion is not an enforceable law...
It has that effect though. Unless a person has the resources to defend themselves, laws are what law enforcement says they are. Try to cite Bill of Rights protections to law enforcement and they either assume you're a nut or part of a militia.
Even if defendants ultimately prevail, the damage has been done and a chilling effect is almost always created.
You are confusing liquor laws.. They have almost nothing to do with morality but are mostly in place to protect the distributors - pretty much the same thing as what the car dealerships are doing. Some of the bluest of states have the most draconian liquor laws.
While it is true that "blue laws" have been used to restrict alcohol sales as well, but again, those are applied in non "bible-thumper" states and cities as well.
Unfortunately, most of the the space/astronomy threads are just filled with Uranus & Urectum jokes.
The problem with that is that both the encrypted data and the key would reside with them.
They could encrypt the photo, send the key to the recipient and then delete the key from the server. The recepient's SnapChat client would have the encryption key so all of the functionality would remain in place.
This site does almost none of what you listed. This is a sign-up site, not a transaction processing and billing site.
What sort of complex logic do you think this site has?
The CRTs were convex, the samsung phones are concave.
Saw the CEO of DirecTV on Undercover Boss a couple of years ago. He seemed like an extreme penny pincher and preoccupied on "efficiency" metrics.
On the basis of the statements in the video, it's not clear if that's true. Consider the case where you're guilty and you get some leniency for cooperating. If you lawyer up right away, and eventually your lawyer shows up and you "cooperate" through your lawyer, will the police be as eager to tell the judge that you deserve leniency for cooperating?
That sort of thing doesn't happen anyway. That's just an interrogation method used by interrogators to incentivize a person to confess. In many cases, the person may even confess to something they haven't even done.
As others have pointed out many times in this thread, the police don't have any hand in sentencing - even with a guilty plea.
Cops putting in a good word with the judge doesn't even work on shows that you based your research on like Law & Order. Even they portray it as an empty promise.
Are you sure audio is part of the DVI standard? I'm not challenging you, but just curious where audio is located in the standard. Everything I've found indicates that the Digiital Visual Interface (DVI) is designed for visual interfaces. I'm aware of some devices that utilize audio over DVI, but aren't those extensions of the standard?
If it wasn't you stealing the parts, then who was it? (typical police tactic)
Unless the US is a totally fucked up setup, the police counties don't actually get the payout for traffic violations
Unfortunately they do - that is the root of the problem. It's why the police tend to focus on crimes that are revenue generating and ignore those that are not (e.g. robberies, vandalism, etc).
Could you elaborate on what happened to you?
You misread what was posted. The point was that anything said to the police on your own behalf cannot be entered into evidence by your defense. The police, however, can enter anything you've said if they feel that it is incriminating.
Essentially, your words to the police cannot help and will most likely hurt you.
Or better yet, Officer Bruch provided some edge cases where the person got lucky and didn't hurt themselves.
Professor Duane said "It CANNOT help if you talk to the police". The professor and the cop are saying opposite things, whether they realized it or not, and that's what people keep missing.
No they didn't - that is what you are missing. The officer just pointed out some situations where a person didn't get arrested/convicted due to speaking to the police.
There is no evidence that they would have been worse off long term by consulting an attorney first. There was a high risk, however, that speaking to the police about an crime without an attorney would lead to their life being left in shambles.
Professor Duane said "It CANNOT help if you talk to the police". Officer Bruch gave multiple real-life examples from his own career of people who helped themselves by talking to the police. Do you think Officer Bruch was lying or was Professor Duane wrong?
You're constructing a false dichotomy. The people that Officer Bruch referred to that were "helped" may have ended up in an even better situation if they had not talked to the police without an attorney's advice. They engaged in a high risk activity and got lucky.
By your logic, sharing needles is not a high risk situation, since some people have done it without getting sick.
Lawyers are not necessary in every situation, but should be readily consulted as soon as they are needed, and not a moment later.
A person being questioned by the police does not have the ability to determine when an attorney is needed. Police are very good at interrogation and getting people to hang themselves legally - even if they are innocent.
It's a common tool for the police to tell suspects that if they just admit to a crime, that it is no big deal and they can home tonight before their parents, spouse or employer finds out about it. Next thing you know, a person admits to something they didn't even do and is doing 25 years in prison.