This is something that is simply impossible to know. Sure, some people have serious evidence against them and confess, some are blatantly railroaded. But the rest are debatable.
And of course, some juries convict because the guy "probably" did it, but the burden of proof is supposed to be a bit higher than that.
Then there's the wonderful plea bargain concept. Want a constitutionally guaranteed trial? Then you risk a harsher sentence. It was instituted for the same reason torture was allowed for extracting confessions - the burden of proof was higher than the prosecution's liking.
Your defense is also determined largely by how much money you have. There are plenty of instances in my state, Texas, where in capital cases the defense attorney (public defender) put on no defense, and even slept through parts of the trial. And to successfully appeal on the grounds of inadequate defense, you have to prove that the lawyer slept through the important parts of the trial. And how would you know which parts are important? You're not a lawyer, and your attorney certainly isn't going to give evidence against himself.
So as you can see, there are plenty of things that can cause an innocent person to be convicted. But here's a bit of statistical evidence. In Ohio, the number of people on death row that have been executed was just about equal to the number of people on death row that have been exonerated. Which is pretty scary.
You _do_ realize that they also work in jail (usually jobs like making license plates and sometimes doing hard farm jobs), and are paid pennies per hour, right?
Not to mention the fact that the rich can avoid a large portion of that sales tax by shopping in another country. For instance, instead of buying their new wardrobe in New York, they could do it in Paris instead. Similarly for cars, they could buy it in Canada and hire somebody to drive it to the US.
Your statement is necessary but not sufficient. If you don't trreat others with respect/dignity, it is unlikey that they will treat you with respect/dignity. Unfortunately, this isn't a guaranteed return; people who don't observe the golden rule can and do respond to respect/dignity without respect/dignity. My point is that the whole social system has to recognize the inherent dignity of the individual human.
Ah, it seems you've missed the upgrade to the Golden Rule, which is the Tough but Fair strategy of game theory. Basically treat them with dignity and respect the first time, then simply copy their previous behavior towards you.
Re:Freedom, Internet, Tibet, & Chinese Tyranny
on
Contrabandwidth
·
· Score: 1
Yes, they're an authoritarian country, but THATS THE WAY THEY LIKE IT.
OR ELSE.
Seriously, how exactly could you know that? Did you read the government's newspapers saying that its citizens love their government?
How exactly could you get this sort of information free of government corruption?
Econ 101 and some business sense tells you that the more people you spread the cost around, the cheaper overall it is for everyone. Less people, higher cost per an individual.
Maybe you should have stayed in until Econ 102, where they discuss cartels and monopolies.
Then either the laws are not being applied effectively, or the laws themselves simply aren't effective. If incidents like the one in this story happen at all regularly, then something needs to be done to stop it.
That's exactly what I'm saying! How the hell are they going to know that work is available if they aren't out looking for it? Seriously, how would they know?
When the labor market was decent, companies would conduct searches for employees, especially at competing companies. They knew there were plenty of good employees that would take a new job but that weren't actively looking for a job.
It sounds like you're saying, anecdote notwithstanding, that anyone who doesn't explore every single possibility for a job, however remote, isn't really looking for a job.
I mean, a number of job postings aren't even real - they're just attempts by companies to superficially meet various legal requirements to do a good faith search for an employee, or just to see what's out there when they have no openings.
It really seems like you just want people to chase rainbows.
I noticed after I posted that there was a confusing statement. When I say "just market value", I meant "simply market value".
Many people think that the end result of whatever market system is currently in force is inherently fair, and as such we have no right to make any adjustments to the current market system (highly circular argument).
As for eminent domain itself, there's no good way to get around it. With it, certain people can abuse their power to get property for less than it's worth. Without it, anyone with enough money can block any government action to build something buy purchasing a small portion of the land they need and simply refusing to sell.
Just because there are in fact a lot of unqualified people looking for IT jobs (and there are) doesn't mean there aren't a lot of qualified unemployed people. One job posting can attract thousands of resumes, so the employer may well simply throw out 90% or more of them unread, and still have plenty of qualified people to choose from.
Fair market value is what someone is willing to pay for the property.
No, that's just market value. Fair is a value determination that's highly subjective. What you're claiming is the same as claiming that all laws are just, or simply that Might makes Right.
If they've given up looking for work, they're not in the labor pool. Period.
You're saying that if work was available they wouldn't take it? Every one of them? Are you really serious?
There's a lot of people who have enough in savings who have decided to just wait the shitty economy out. They'd gladly take a job if there was one available. But there's little point of going to job fair after job fair if there are so many people in line that the event is over before you ever get in the building.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you missed the sarcasm. At least, I hope it was sarcasm.
This is something that is simply impossible to know. Sure, some people have serious evidence against them and confess, some are blatantly railroaded. But the rest are debatable.
And of course, some juries convict because the guy "probably" did it, but the burden of proof is supposed to be a bit higher than that.
Then there's the wonderful plea bargain concept. Want a constitutionally guaranteed trial? Then you risk a harsher sentence. It was instituted for the same reason torture was allowed for extracting confessions - the burden of proof was higher than the prosecution's liking.
Your defense is also determined largely by how much money you have. There are plenty of instances in my state, Texas, where in capital cases the defense attorney (public defender) put on no defense, and even slept through parts of the trial. And to successfully appeal on the grounds of inadequate defense, you have to prove that the lawyer slept through the important parts of the trial. And how would you know which parts are important? You're not a lawyer, and your attorney certainly isn't going to give evidence against himself.
So as you can see, there are plenty of things that can cause an innocent person to be convicted. But here's a bit of statistical evidence. In Ohio, the number of people on death row that have been executed was just about equal to the number of people on death row that have been exonerated. Which is pretty scary.
Of course, you have some way to prove this, right?
You _do_ realize that they also work in jail (usually jobs like making license plates and sometimes doing hard farm jobs), and are paid pennies per hour, right?
Not to mention the fact that the rich can avoid a large portion of that sales tax by shopping in another country. For instance, instead of buying their new wardrobe in New York, they could do it in Paris instead. Similarly for cars, they could buy it in Canada and hire somebody to drive it to the US.
The Secret Service is part of the Department of the Treasury.
I think the Guide describes them as, "A bunch of brainless jerks who will be first against the wall when the revolution comes."
OR ELSE.
Seriously, how exactly could you know that? Did you read the government's newspapers saying that its citizens love their government?
How exactly could you get this sort of information free of government corruption?
Give it a month, when the EU is reported to have "Weapons of Mass Destruction." In this case, it'll actually be true.
If you simply leave the room during commercials, they consider you a pirate. Fuck them.
I think you're not paying attention.
Since when will lowering prices cost you customers?
Frankly, I think more things should go up for referrendum. Emminent domain seizures should be one of them.
Then either the laws are not being applied effectively, or the laws themselves simply aren't effective. If incidents like the one in this story happen at all regularly, then something needs to be done to stop it.
I mean, a number of job postings aren't even real - they're just attempts by companies to superficially meet various legal requirements to do a good faith search for an employee, or just to see what's out there when they have no openings.
It really seems like you just want people to chase rainbows.
I noticed after I posted that there was a confusing statement. When I say "just market value", I meant "simply market value".
Many people think that the end result of whatever market system is currently in force is inherently fair, and as such we have no right to make any adjustments to the current market system (highly circular argument).
As for eminent domain itself, there's no good way to get around it. With it, certain people can abuse their power to get property for less than it's worth. Without it, anyone with enough money can block any government action to build something buy purchasing a small portion of the land they need and simply refusing to sell.
Either way, you get injustice.
Just because there are in fact a lot of unqualified people looking for IT jobs (and there are) doesn't mean there aren't a lot of qualified unemployed people. One job posting can attract thousands of resumes, so the employer may well simply throw out 90% or more of them unread, and still have plenty of qualified people to choose from.
There's a lot of people who have enough in savings who have decided to just wait the shitty economy out. They'd gladly take a job if there was one available. But there's little point of going to job fair after job fair if there are so many people in line that the event is over before you ever get in the building.
I'm assuming you're joking here.
Self-regulation? Might as well disband the police, hoping all those criminals will "self-regulate" themselves.
Which is why regulation of large companies is often necessary.
But first, we need to make sure politicians are accountable to the people, rather than corporations. Which is another can of worms.
Hey, watch it. There are plenty of non-fascists here in Texas.
Children are required by law to attend school.