I didn't conflate them. I specifically talked about "real" felonies - armed robbery, murder, rape. And the political process is the one that determines what are, and are not, crimes, and what the penalties for said crimes will be. I believe that some crimes are so heinous as to demand the separation of the people who commit them from society and its protections. If you disagree with me, that's fine. We'll argue it out through the political process, and see who wins.
The US Army spent most of its time in the 19th century killing Indians. Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor, and William Henry Harrison all fought those wars, to name a few "war hero" presidents. Disease did play an outsized role in reducing the numbers, and the US govt did eventually relent, but the same diseases affected Central and South America. It's worth noting that the Spaniards tried to keep them alive to work as slaves, while the Americans tried to marginalize and kill them to use the land themselves. A quick look at the demographics reveals the success of this technique.
These sins are hardly unique to the US, and I didn't mean to imply that they were. Genocides work, which is why they keep cropping up. And they're a great example of wars that could usually be avoided, but aren't.
You've obviously never used these. No, they're not real humans, but then again, there is a limited supply of real humans that can be allowed to bleed out in order to train people. The state of the art in medical simulation is a good physical facsimile of a human being with a very well modeled physiological system - they breathe, they open and close their eyes, their pupils dilate and constrict, they have pulses, they have veins, they vomit, they can be intubated. If you aren't giving chest compressions strongly enough, or in the right place, your patient will die. Conversely, if you do it right, the model will recognize that and will give the patient a readable blood pressure and pulse.He might even wake up.
I've trained dozens of medical students and new residents with these. They generally find it to be a very good simulation - not perfect, but very good - of the real thing.
It's hardly pointless. It might be cruel, or evil, to start a war, but it's worth remembering that quite a lot of wars have achieved their goals magnificently. The wars against the Native Americans? Spectacularly successful. Britain's colonial wars? With the exception of the American Revolution, spectacularly successful.
It's a little hard to tell from the article, but Googling makes it look like these are the ones made by METI. They are good physical simulators with a decent physiological computer model. (Most of the time, it's really good, but when it goes off track it goes waaaaaaay off.) I've served as an instructor for my medical center's simulation center for almost two years now, and they really do help people develop emergency management skills. We use them pretty routinely for medical students rotating through anesthesiology, and for getting beginning emergency medicine and anesthesiology residents up to speed with crisis management.
So as long as they're guilty of the crimes that you feel are tied somehow to an inability to make a responsible decision at the polls, it's acceptable to deprive them of their right to vote?
I think that those crimes demonstrate sufficient disregard for others that people forfeit the right to be part of society. YMMV. That's why it's a political process.
Check the other guy who replied to me. Most do not let felons vote while in prison. Many more do not allow it if on parole, and others not until a probationary period is complete. Twelve retain some limitation against voting for at least some felons either for life or until some complicated standard has been met.
Honestly, if they restricted it to "real" felonies - armed robbery, murder, and the like - I'd have no trouble with it. Of course, all felonies were once punishable by death, and while I'm not at all confident enough in our jurisprudence system to trust it to put people to death, I also think that if you have actually committed a "real" felony, you deserve to die.
In my jurisdiction, the exemption for service is only if you actually serve. If the court wastes a week of your time, they can still call you back the next week.
We all sacrifice for civic duty. Why should she be exempt?
It's quite obvious that your jurisdiction makes a number of accommodations to make jury duty non-onerous. Mine does not. This produces significant disparities in the perceived legitimacy of the request. It's all academic, anyway, as I'm quite certain my legitimate and sincere beliefs mean I'll never actually serve on a jury in my jurisdiction. (I'm opposed to the death penalty, support jury nullification, and have a categorical distrust of the law enforcement agencies in my city and county - on par with the attitudes of black people in south central LA toward the LAPD.)
Intriguingly, according to the jury instructions my wife was handed at her recent jury duty, "you will be instructed to consider the evidence in light of your own experience. You are not allowed, however, to relate any special or expert knowledge or opinion that you have regarding business, technical or professional matters to your fellow jurors."
So the doctor and lawyer would find themselves responsible for a mistrial, possibly a contempt of court citation, for explaining anything to the other members of the jury.
The problem with that is that she only gets exempted from future service if she actually serves on a jury. And if she actually serves on a jury, it's likely she'll be there longer than the week. So canceling a week of work cuts her pay (eat-what-you-kill practice), still carries a meaningful chance that she'll have to cancel people at the last second, and carries a huge risk that she'll end up free anyway on a staycation.
In that set of incentives, you'd have to be insane to want to serve on a jury.
She got one week's notice. Assuming she had been given decent notice, though, and taking your example, should she cancel the entire week's appointments? When your work consists entirely of interactions with other people, it's very difficult to create a week in which you don't schedule anything.
What's even funnier about all of that is that our jury rolls are taken from the voting rolls... and felons nearly always lose the right to vote. Voter fraud, anyone?
To answer your question, I live in a rather felonious place. Taxes are bad, services suck, and the cops are just another gang, but the commute is fantastic.
Once every 3-5 years (pick a time), you will be required to serve two weeks of jury duty. You will know the date of this service at least six months in advance. Trials exceeding two weeks in duration will be covered by volunteers who are paid at least the median individual income for their area.
the judge will release you if there are enough other potentials.
See, this is the problem. The idea that the state has some claim upon my time is reflected in taxes. If they want their time in kind, then so be it - but the ability to force someone to work for three weeks straight, with only token compensation, without the ability to earn their normal living, is the ability to destroy that person's life. Either pay them at least as well as an E-1 in the armed forces for their time served, or limit the term of service to one week, but by all means schedule their service in advance. Three weeks is my entire yearly vacation allotment at my current job; if I'm going to lose my entire year's time off, the barest courtesy would be to give me six months' notice.
Jurors reflect the jurisdictions they come from. If you're serving on a suburban jury, that will be very different from something in a very rural county.
I, and a lot of people I know, would experience (and cause) extraordinary inconvenience if required to serve on a jury. My father-in-law is a salesman without salary; if he's empaneled, his family will do without. My brother-in-law is a lawyer; if he's impaneled, his clients will not be represented. My wife is a doctor; if she's empaneled, all her patients will have their appointments canceled with minimal to no notice.
I don't like paying taxes, but at least I can predict them. I could tolerate a fixed period of essentially unpaid service to the state if I could know start and end dates six months ahead.
My wife was called to JD this week. On Monday, as the initial screening began, the first group to be dismissed was felons. Per her report, about 10% of the people present got up and left at that. Your jury pool reflects the jurisdiction from which it is called.
"CO2 is a greenhouse gas" is not a debatable point. "Increases in CO2 will lead to significant worldwide temperature increases" is. Many other factors go into global temperature - plant absorption of CO2, solar output, etc. - that mean that changes in CO2 could go with, against, or independent of global temperature.
Slashdot Mirror
as much as some of us would like to see that happen
Why? Do your political opponents not deserve free speech?
I didn't conflate them. I specifically talked about "real" felonies - armed robbery, murder, rape. And the political process is the one that determines what are, and are not, crimes, and what the penalties for said crimes will be. I believe that some crimes are so heinous as to demand the separation of the people who commit them from society and its protections. If you disagree with me, that's fine. We'll argue it out through the political process, and see who wins.
The US Army spent most of its time in the 19th century killing Indians. Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor, and William Henry Harrison all fought those wars, to name a few "war hero" presidents. Disease did play an outsized role in reducing the numbers, and the US govt did eventually relent, but the same diseases affected Central and South America. It's worth noting that the Spaniards tried to keep them alive to work as slaves, while the Americans tried to marginalize and kill them to use the land themselves. A quick look at the demographics reveals the success of this technique.
These sins are hardly unique to the US, and I didn't mean to imply that they were. Genocides work, which is why they keep cropping up. And they're a great example of wars that could usually be avoided, but aren't.
You've obviously never used these. No, they're not real humans, but then again, there is a limited supply of real humans that can be allowed to bleed out in order to train people. The state of the art in medical simulation is a good physical facsimile of a human being with a very well modeled physiological system - they breathe, they open and close their eyes, their pupils dilate and constrict, they have pulses, they have veins, they vomit, they can be intubated. If you aren't giving chest compressions strongly enough, or in the right place, your patient will die. Conversely, if you do it right, the model will recognize that and will give the patient a readable blood pressure and pulse.He might even wake up.
I've trained dozens of medical students and new residents with these. They generally find it to be a very good simulation - not perfect, but very good - of the real thing.
It's hardly pointless. It might be cruel, or evil, to start a war, but it's worth remembering that quite a lot of wars have achieved their goals magnificently. The wars against the Native Americans? Spectacularly successful. Britain's colonial wars? With the exception of the American Revolution, spectacularly successful.
It's a little hard to tell from the article, but Googling makes it look like these are the ones made by METI. They are good physical simulators with a decent physiological computer model. (Most of the time, it's really good, but when it goes off track it goes waaaaaaay off.) I've served as an instructor for my medical center's simulation center for almost two years now, and they really do help people develop emergency management skills. We use them pretty routinely for medical students rotating through anesthesiology, and for getting beginning emergency medicine and anesthesiology residents up to speed with crisis management.
So as long as they're guilty of the crimes that you feel are tied somehow to an inability to make a responsible decision at the polls, it's acceptable to deprive them of their right to vote?
I think that those crimes demonstrate sufficient disregard for others that people forfeit the right to be part of society. YMMV. That's why it's a political process.
Check the other guy who replied to me. Most do not let felons vote while in prison. Many more do not allow it if on parole, and others not until a probationary period is complete. Twelve retain some limitation against voting for at least some felons either for life or until some complicated standard has been met.
Honestly, if they restricted it to "real" felonies - armed robbery, murder, and the like - I'd have no trouble with it. Of course, all felonies were once punishable by death, and while I'm not at all confident enough in our jurisprudence system to trust it to put people to death, I also think that if you have actually committed a "real" felony, you deserve to die.
We all sacrifice for civic duty. Why should she be exempt?
It's quite obvious that your jurisdiction makes a number of accommodations to make jury duty non-onerous. Mine does not. This produces significant disparities in the perceived legitimacy of the request. It's all academic, anyway, as I'm quite certain my legitimate and sincere beliefs mean I'll never actually serve on a jury in my jurisdiction. (I'm opposed to the death penalty, support jury nullification, and have a categorical distrust of the law enforcement agencies in my city and county - on par with the attitudes of black people in south central LA toward the LAPD.)
Does your employer pay you for time spent on jury duty? Does it charge it against your vacation time? What if the trial lasts several months?
Depends on your jurisdiction. In mine, it's voter rolls. And in mine, many felons lose the right to vote.
Intriguingly, according to the jury instructions my wife was handed at her recent jury duty, "you will be instructed to consider the evidence in light of your own experience. You are not allowed, however, to relate any special or expert knowledge or opinion that you have regarding business, technical or professional matters to your fellow jurors."
So the doctor and lawyer would find themselves responsible for a mistrial, possibly a contempt of court citation, for explaining anything to the other members of the jury.
The problem with that is that she only gets exempted from future service if she actually serves on a jury. And if she actually serves on a jury, it's likely she'll be there longer than the week. So canceling a week of work cuts her pay (eat-what-you-kill practice), still carries a meaningful chance that she'll have to cancel people at the last second, and carries a huge risk that she'll end up free anyway on a staycation.
In that set of incentives, you'd have to be insane to want to serve on a jury.
She got one week's notice. Assuming she had been given decent notice, though, and taking your example, should she cancel the entire week's appointments? When your work consists entirely of interactions with other people, it's very difficult to create a week in which you don't schedule anything.
Not everyone works for a big corporation that can eat the loss without much trouble.
Also, before someone points it out, I know I wasn't consistent, but both impanel and empanel appear to be correct.
What's even funnier about all of that is that our jury rolls are taken from the voting rolls... and felons nearly always lose the right to vote. Voter fraud, anyone?
To answer your question, I live in a rather felonious place. Taxes are bad, services suck, and the cops are just another gang, but the commute is fantastic.
Once every 3-5 years (pick a time), you will be required to serve two weeks of jury duty. You will know the date of this service at least six months in advance. Trials exceeding two weeks in duration will be covered by volunteers who are paid at least the median individual income for their area.
If you can't find someone to help you run you business, you do not belong in that court room.
I think he agrees with you on that.
the judge will release you if there are enough other potentials.
See, this is the problem. The idea that the state has some claim upon my time is reflected in taxes. If they want their time in kind, then so be it - but the ability to force someone to work for three weeks straight, with only token compensation, without the ability to earn their normal living, is the ability to destroy that person's life. Either pay them at least as well as an E-1 in the armed forces for their time served, or limit the term of service to one week, but by all means schedule their service in advance. Three weeks is my entire yearly vacation allotment at my current job; if I'm going to lose my entire year's time off, the barest courtesy would be to give me six months' notice.
Jurors reflect the jurisdictions they come from. If you're serving on a suburban jury, that will be very different from something in a very rural county.
I, and a lot of people I know, would experience (and cause) extraordinary inconvenience if required to serve on a jury. My father-in-law is a salesman without salary; if he's empaneled, his family will do without. My brother-in-law is a lawyer; if he's impaneled, his clients will not be represented. My wife is a doctor; if she's empaneled, all her patients will have their appointments canceled with minimal to no notice.
I don't like paying taxes, but at least I can predict them. I could tolerate a fixed period of essentially unpaid service to the state if I could know start and end dates six months ahead.
My wife was called to JD this week. On Monday, as the initial screening began, the first group to be dismissed was felons. Per her report, about 10% of the people present got up and left at that. Your jury pool reflects the jurisdiction from which it is called.
Had she known - in fact, had she been a lawyer herself - she would likely have been prohibited from sharing that information with other jurors.
"CO2 is a greenhouse gas" is not a debatable point. "Increases in CO2 will lead to significant worldwide temperature increases" is. Many other factors go into global temperature - plant absorption of CO2, solar output, etc. - that mean that changes in CO2 could go with, against, or independent of global temperature.