That's rather funny in terms of how it is written. It just isn't true the different agencies do have different personalities. There are huge differences between them. CDC is snobby and elitist but very accurate and open. FBI is technologically incompetent but hires great people. NSA has wicked cool toys but no sense or morality. Bureau of Labor Statistics aims for quality and predictability but is rather scared of congress. CIA is beset with internal infighting.
I really hope the Republicans make a civil rights issue out of this. Using Homeland security for copyright enforcement? Forget about the fact that they were incompetent, even if they had gotten this right it was way way out of line.
Actually no. If you look at Stallman issues 10 years later I'd say he's doing far better than 50/50. Look at the anti-Stallman debates from 2000 and you tell me if he lost all of those. Now look back to say 1990, 1984? Really he's lost very few.
I'd much rather be on the dock with a sane system. The European system which gets people pretty good trials uniformly strikes me as far better in practice than our system which gets people theoretically great trials and practically terrible ones.
The judge corrects the factual information. Then the defense has to prove that there is a reason to believe that the Wikipedia article caused a change in the outcome. Which is a stretch. Its hard to even imagine how this article could have caused the jury to materially effect the verdict.
And then questions about whether the information effected deliberations could be evaluated. The burdon would be on the defense to explain how wikipedia had effectually tainted to the jury to the point that they could no longer get a fair trial.
Yes it is. Its quite a conundrum. The legal purpose and the political purpose of juries are entirely different and in fact conflict. But the political purpose still holds. Its one of the reasons that many types of convictions are becoming more difficult.
You are right regarding the exclusionary rule. I looked it up after your post. Thanks for the correction. I don't agree with the law but 49 states (Florida excluded) you got it correct.
The lawyers have to prove the case to the jury they have.
As for low IQ from what I understand that is a myth. Lawyers differ on what they want, it is a balancing act. Also what's good for the defense is frequently not good for the prosecution. The main thing is that juries in general and intelligent people in particular introduce more apparent randomness into the process. So often if you have a weak case you want a smart jury.
I understand that Wikipedia might have incorrect information or might any other source. But all trials depend on underlying knowledge of juries that might or might not be correct. There is a reason we have 12 and not 1.
And lets take your scenario where the person sees the sling and then the judge provides the correct information.... I don't see the harm in the correction. Why would the jury believe the sling picture over the judge and lawyers unless they had already discredit themselves. And if they had, then the jury should acquit.
It didn't happen. This definition came in during deliberations.
What should have happened is the judge should have presented an official definition which the jurors would likely give far more weight to than a wikipedia article, unless the judge had destroyed his credibility in which case...
Because actually one of the purposes of the jury system is to act as a check on the ruling class. Refusing to uphold immoral or blatantly unconstitutional law is one of the major reasons to both having juries.
That's my experience to, though on financial matters.
Europeans like their system with investigating judges a lot better. I'd love to start discussing moving to the European system and away from the adversarial system.
As an aside of the jurors were interviewed. They broke down why they decided the case the way they did. Essentially the prosecution didn't address the various doubts so they though OJ probably did it.
OJ? Unless by paid off you mean for lots of money you get excellent lawyering I'd say that was American justice at its best. You had a very good DA beat by some of the best lawyers in the country. The jury indicated at the time they believed he probably did it, but not that he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.
OK. Lets make it a bit different. Your jury has a lot of retired people on it who are conservative. One of the juriors pulls up a transcript from Glenn Beck about the very topic of your trial, (not directly your trial just on point) and many jurors find that credible.
Or.... 5 of your jurors believe in astrology. They research everyone's birth dates work up their charts and use that to determine how likely various people are to lie.
The problem with prosecute the cops is we don't have the notion of an investigating judges. Judges can't initiate prosecutions in the USA. They only thing they can do is thwart the cops / prosecutors.
As exclusionary rule, it would often be worth it to get the information. For example if I'm involved in a lawsuit it might be worth it for me to go to jail for B & E to break into my opposition's lawyer's office and steal the notes to my case.
Well yes those are two parallel systems with different intents. The legal system believes juries are there as finders of fact within the system. The political system has juries there as a check on the power of judges and prosecutors.
Yes they are. But they aren't part of the government and don't have the right friends. They aren't part of the elite in terms of education and upbringing. They don't read the same newspapers as lawmakers, do the same activities. In other words they offer a genuinely different perspective.
A person trained in law by the very sorts of people that made the laws would not offer that check on government. I'm very thankful for juries.
Slashdot Mirror
There definitely should be an investigation.
That's rather funny in terms of how it is written. It just isn't true the different agencies do have different personalities. There are huge differences between them. CDC is snobby and elitist but very accurate and open. FBI is technologically incompetent but hires great people. NSA has wicked cool toys but no sense or morality. Bureau of Labor Statistics aims for quality and predictability but is rather scared of congress. CIA is beset with internal infighting.
I really hope the Republicans make a civil rights issue out of this. Using Homeland security for copyright enforcement? Forget about the fact that they were incompetent, even if they had gotten this right it was way way out of line.
Actually no. If you look at Stallman issues 10 years later I'd say he's doing far better than 50/50. Look at the anti-Stallman debates from 2000 and you tell me if he lost all of those. Now look back to say 1990, 1984? Really he's lost very few.
Did you mean this reply for this post?
I'd much rather be on the dock with a sane system. The European system which gets people pretty good trials uniformly strikes me as far better in practice than our system which gets people theoretically great trials and practically terrible ones.
The judge corrects the factual information. Then the defense has to prove that there is a reason to believe that the Wikipedia article caused a change in the outcome. Which is a stretch. Its hard to even imagine how this article could have caused the jury to materially effect the verdict.
We don't need perfect trials.
And then questions about whether the information effected deliberations could be evaluated. The burdon would be on the defense to explain how wikipedia had effectually tainted to the jury to the point that they could no longer get a fair trial.
Not at all the same result.
Yes it is. Its quite a conundrum. The legal purpose and the political purpose of juries are entirely different and in fact conflict. But the political purpose still holds. Its one of the reasons that many types of convictions are becoming more difficult.
You are right regarding the exclusionary rule. I looked it up after your post. Thanks for the correction. I don't agree with the law but 49 states (Florida excluded) you got it correct.
The lawyers have to prove the case to the jury they have.
As for low IQ from what I understand that is a myth. Lawyers differ on what they want, it is a balancing act. Also what's good for the defense is frequently not good for the prosecution. The main thing is that juries in general and intelligent people in particular introduce more apparent randomness into the process. So often if you have a weak case you want a smart jury.
I understand that Wikipedia might have incorrect information or might any other source. But all trials depend on underlying knowledge of juries that might or might not be correct. There is a reason we have 12 and not 1.
And lets take your scenario where the person sees the sling and then the judge provides the correct information.... I don't see the harm in the correction. Why would the jury believe the sling picture over the judge and lawyers unless they had already discredit themselves. And if they had, then the jury should acquit.
Its not so much the amount it is the ease that's changed. Also most jurors now live in a "look it up" culture.
If you as a juror are unsure that the law was violated without seeing the text you vote not guilty.
It didn't happen. This definition came in during deliberations.
What should have happened is the judge should have presented an official definition which the jurors would likely give far more weight to than a wikipedia article, unless the judge had destroyed his credibility in which case ...
Because actually one of the purposes of the jury system is to act as a check on the ruling class. Refusing to uphold immoral or blatantly unconstitutional law is one of the major reasons to both having juries.
That's my experience to, though on financial matters.
Europeans like their system with investigating judges a lot better. I'd love to start discussing moving to the European system and away from the adversarial system.
As an aside of the jurors were interviewed. They broke down why they decided the case the way they did. Essentially the prosecution didn't address the various doubts so they though OJ probably did it.
OJ? Unless by paid off you mean for lots of money you get excellent lawyering I'd say that was American justice at its best. You had a very good DA beat by some of the best lawyers in the country. The jury indicated at the time they believed he probably did it, but not that he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.
OK. Lets make it a bit different. Your jury has a lot of retired people on it who are conservative. One of the juriors pulls up a transcript from Glenn Beck about the very topic of your trial, (not directly your trial just on point) and many jurors find that credible.
Or.... 5 of your jurors believe in astrology. They research everyone's birth dates work up their charts and use that to determine how likely various people are to lie.
Yes you aren't allowed to dispute facts not in question. You need to rule as if the world were flat in this case.
The problem with prosecute the cops is we don't have the notion of an investigating judges. Judges can't initiate prosecutions in the USA. They only thing they can do is thwart the cops / prosecutors.
As exclusionary rule, it would often be worth it to get the information. For example if I'm involved in a lawsuit it might be worth it for me to go to jail for B & E to break into my opposition's lawyer's office and steal the notes to my case.
Well yes those are two parallel systems with different intents. The legal system believes juries are there as finders of fact within the system. The political system has juries there as a check on the power of judges and prosecutors.
Good answer I was going to answer this but I don't need to now.
Yes they are. But they aren't part of the government and don't have the right friends. They aren't part of the elite in terms of education and upbringing. They don't read the same newspapers as lawmakers, do the same activities. In other words they offer a genuinely different perspective.
A person trained in law by the very sorts of people that made the laws would not offer that check on government. I'm very thankful for juries.