Same goes for discounting for cash transactions or charging a surcharge for CC transactions; also prohibited by the merchant agreement.
Though, there are companies out there who use affiliates to process their CC transactions, and recouping the gateway fees by having the primary company charge to have their payments processed through the affiliate. They then cost-share with the affiliate to cover the fees.
The only F2P MMO I've ever played that had a developer who actually gave a shit was Puzzle Pirates. Then again, it's also the only MMO I've ever played that rewarded skill much more highly than how much you paid. A skilled player could easily afford anything in the game, and there's no such thing as level grind when all stats are ranked against averages created by all the players on the server. Create a new character and you can immediately rank at the top of the charts if you are among the best at playing the puzzles.
Certainly you could buy your way into end-game play, but that's by no means a guarantee you won't be trounced by a flag (guild) of players who makes their way on nothing but skill. Flags that do fund their end-game operations that way still have to stay in the good graces of enough exceptional players to ensure it's something more than just burning money.
Most credit card transactions have a gateway fee of something around $0.15 to $0.30, and then take a percentage (1-3%) of the transaction amount. So yes, small credit card transactions are eaten up in large part by transaction fees. Probably not 50%, but certainly as high as 33%.
This is why many places that accept credit cards require minimum transaction amounts to use them.
Most people don't consider CCs highway robbery because they don't know how they work on the back end. Merchants most certainly see some CC gateways as highway robbers, because they are the ones who have to deal with the margin losses on small transactions because douchebag consumers don't care and want to buy a pack of gum on their Visa without realizing the implications of their laziness.
It doesn't matter that it's extreme. It matters that it directly addresses the issue. Taking logic to extremes is frequently required to show why a given path should or should not be taken. This particular one provides stark clarity, in that it exactly mirrors why your husband could be correctly dismissed. The only difference is that your case involved a fundamentalist sect the attorney wasn't familiar with, whereas (some of) the biases of Westboro members are plainly evident. An unknown fundamentalist sect, in this matter, can only be compared to the tendencies of other, more well-known sects as the tenets are not common knowledge.
The issue is whether someone's religion can bias their opinion in a matter that could affect the outcome of a case.
That example clearly shows it can, which means there are almost certainly going to be lesser degrees that also bias a juror. Much of voir dire is about perception, not necessarily about how a potential juror will actually perform. Nobody knows how they'll actually perform, so they can only remove those biases they perceive might exist.
Westboro fundamentalists exist. Period. Their bias is simply clear to everyone who encounters them. Other fundamentalist organizations have clear biases. Should Muslims be dismissed? In general no, but we weren't talking about Christians in general being dismissed either. That's a cop-out question to attack my argument on an emotional level, rather than actually answering the question. Should a fundamentalist Muslim be dismissed in the trial of a Hacid? Yes, more than likely. Said Muslim may have no problem putting aside his religious differences, but there are thousands or more who wouldn't. In all your "examples," you're generalizing and leaving out the potential for conflict to exist, either by appearance or actual fact. There are instances in every one of those examples where dismissal is appropriate. Your husband wasn't disqualified from serving on any jury. He was disqualified from serving on that particular jury. There is an enormous difference. The former is general prejudice, which would be inappropriate. The latter is because of the circumstances of one particular case. There were likely dozens of other cases that, if he had randomly been assigned to instead, his religion would not have been an issue in. I didn't say I'd dismiss him in every case, just that I would more than likely do so in that particular case.
You don't seem to understand that attorneys can't know everything about your particular brand of religion. That can be a bigmust err on the side of caution in order that a fair trial be preserved. When you're questioning dozens (or in a busy court, hundreds) of potential jurors, the luxury to ask a dozen questions to resolve just one potential bias issue should be weighed against the time required of everyone else who is required to be there under penalty of law.
Let me use an example that might clear my argument up a bit:
Do you believe an attorney should fail to challenge a juror who belongs to the Westboro Baptist Church in the trial of a man who is openly gay? Or that the challenge should be overruled by the presiding judge?
After all, they're entitled to their religious beliefs, and dismissing them because of those beliefs is wrong, correct?
If it's alright to dismiss them, let's admit that a grey area exists where an attorney could have a genuine concern that might not actually turn out to be correct. Should we err on the side of caution so someone gets a fair trial, or should we be PC and not hurt the prospective juror's pride? Which is more important?
If it's not alright to dismiss them, I have nothing left to say to you in regard to this matter.
Gah, forgot to format with HTML. I apologize for the wall of unformatted text.
Again:
If there is reason to believe those beliefs might interfere with the ability to judge someone else impartially, absolutely yes. The freedom of religion needs to be balanced among all parties. The juror loses nothing. The defendant might lose their life.
"Belief" is at the very core of why voire dire exists. It is there specifically to ensure that certain beliefs do not taint the jury pool. If there is any reason to believe a person may hold bias against any party they should be dismissed. Not only does that include religious beliefs, it should specifically guard against bias in religious beliefs because they tend to be so pervasive in regard to those who hold them. The more closely-held the belief, the more close the scrutiny should be regarding whether that belief will impact the ability to render impartial judgement.
The rest of your comment is hyperbole that has no actual bearing on the topic. You can apparently only see your own side, and not how the greater ramifications could make a very real, very negative impact on the life of someone who might be innocent of the charges levied against them. Maybe not because of your husband, but because of someone like him, but only very slightly different (in that they have no compunctions regarding holding their beliefs against one who does not believe the same). If you don't believe there are numerous fundamentalists (of any religion) out there who would do such, you are naive in the extreme.
If there is reason to believe those beliefs might interfere with the ability to judge someone else impartially, absolutely yes. The freedom of religion needs to be balanced among all parties. The juror loses nothing. The defendant might lose their life.
"Belief" is at the very core of why voire dire exists. It is there specifically to ensure that certain beliefs do not taint the jury pool. If there is any reason to believe a person may hold bias against any party they should be dismissed. Not only does that include religious beliefs, it should specifically guard against bias in religious beliefs because they tend to be so pervasive in regard to those who hold them. The more closely-held the belief, the more close the scrutiny should be regarding whether that belief will impact the ability to render impartial judgement.
The rest of your comment is hyperbole that has no actual bearing on the topic. You can apparently only see your own side, and not how the greater ramifications could make a very real, very negative impact on the life of someone who might be innocent of the charges levied against them. Maybe not because of your husband, but because of someone like him, but only very slightly different (in that they have no compunctions regarding holding their beliefs against one who does not believe the same). If you don't believe there are numerous fundamentalists (of any religion) out there who would do such, you are naive in the extreme.
It has a lot to do with freedom of religion, and nothing to do with (in)tolerance. The defendant is free to not have his religious choices count against him. Since an attorney has little time to determine bias in prospective jurors, the dismissal request was eminently reasonable. Most fundamentalists are intolerant of those who hold views contrary to their own. There are only a few notable exceptions, though certainly many that are much less notable (such as yours, apparently). The Hacidim and the Amish come to mind, and not many others. Even the tolerance of those groups only extends so far.
We had no desire to enforce our beliefs on others; if one wanted to join and abide by our rules, fine. If not, fine.
Without knowing this beforehand, most people will (rightly, in most cases) assume the exact opposite to be true.
Also, "presume" only has negative colloquial connotations. It has no such when used in a legal sense. Quite the opposite, frequently.
They've created a lot of overlap, much of which is propably an attempt to skirt protections afforded defendants in criminal matters. The judge shouldn't be deciding the award in the case of a civil judgement. Since it is the state imposing the quantity, it should be considered a fine regardless of who it is payable to.
The part about his children is hyperbole, at least for the meantime. It's unlikely he'll ever have assets substantial enough to pass on to his children, and when he dies the debt is erased.
More than likely, they'll grow up learning to view the government in a way much different than their peers. Hopefully, anyway.
Yes, they can. He also won't be able to keep funds in a bank account, as they can move to have them seized (no, it's not difficult, either).
He'll never be able to own anything more substantial than personal household possessions and a single vehicle. Anything else would be subject to seizure.
What's sad is it occurs even in states where jury nullification is specifically protected by the state's Constitution. One such state is Oregon, where the jury pamphlet and the Constitution stand in direct contradiction of the other.
Oregon Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 16: Excessive bail and fines; cruel and unusual punishments; power of jury in criminal case. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed. Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted, but all penalties shall be proportioned to the offense.–In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases.
Oregon Jury Pamphlet What does the judge do? The trial judge presides over the trial and decides what laws apply. The judge then instructs the jury as to the correct law in each case. Although some people may claim that a jury can “nullify” the law, this view is legally incorrect and severely prejudices the administration of justice. Jurors who disregard the trial judge’s instructions have violated their oath.
If I were an attorney during voire dire, I'd more than likely move for a dismissal of your husband for cause too. The presumption of prejudice is eminently reasonable when a religious fundamentalist is involved. There is all of human history to lend credence to a lack of ability to compromise when a fundamentalist's beliefs may come into play.
This is why I go out of my way to not avoid jury service. Unfortunately, chemotherapy made opting out unavoidable for me when called this year.
Intelligent people who avoid jury duty because it is an inconvenience are being extraordinarily selfish, though perhaps unintentionally so.
That said, juries are frequently instructed in a very narrow manner. Many cases end up with jurors stating that, if they had been allowed to hear mitigating circumstances they would not have found the way they did. This frequently happens in marijuana cases brought in Federal courts, as they do not allow the use of illness as a defense. Jurors only learn afterward that someone suffers debilitating nausea from cancer, which can't be controlled by conventional anti-emetics. An example of this is when the United States murdered Peter McWilliams.
Slashdot Mirror
show probable cause and get a warrant
Police: "He was breathing."
Judge: "Approved!"
The merchant agreement doesn't trump federal law, which allows up to a $10 minimum purchase requirement.
When there are only two parent providers for the overwhelming majority of transactions, negotiating isn't really that much of an option.
Yeah, I suppose I can get behind that logic. Most people don't have the clue to actually make that sort of informed decision though.
Same goes for discounting for cash transactions or charging a surcharge for CC transactions; also prohibited by the merchant agreement.
Though, there are companies out there who use affiliates to process their CC transactions, and recouping the gateway fees by having the primary company charge to have their payments processed through the affiliate. They then cost-share with the affiliate to cover the fees.
The only F2P MMO I've ever played that had a developer who actually gave a shit was Puzzle Pirates. Then again, it's also the only MMO I've ever played that rewarded skill much more highly than how much you paid. A skilled player could easily afford anything in the game, and there's no such thing as level grind when all stats are ranked against averages created by all the players on the server. Create a new character and you can immediately rank at the top of the charts if you are among the best at playing the puzzles.
Certainly you could buy your way into end-game play, but that's by no means a guarantee you won't be trounced by a flag (guild) of players who makes their way on nothing but skill. Flags that do fund their end-game operations that way still have to stay in the good graces of enough exceptional players to ensure it's something more than just burning money.
Most credit card transactions have a gateway fee of something around $0.15 to $0.30, and then take a percentage (1-3%) of the transaction amount. So yes, small credit card transactions are eaten up in large part by transaction fees. Probably not 50%, but certainly as high as 33%.
This is why many places that accept credit cards require minimum transaction amounts to use them.
Most people don't consider CCs highway robbery because they don't know how they work on the back end. Merchants most certainly see some CC gateways as highway robbers, because they are the ones who have to deal with the margin losses on small transactions because douchebag consumers don't care and want to buy a pack of gum on their Visa without realizing the implications of their laziness.
Anyone who takes a Seinfeld reference seriously needs to be shot. Actually, let's just shoot Seinfeld.
<troll>It's an Apple product. Didn't you know you're supposed to upgrade before the warranty expires?</troll>
I prefer Alt-130, myself. :)
Assembly? Bah, in our day we'd code our router software on punchcards and walk it down the hall to transfer data! And we liked it!*
*Not really.
I didn't mean it would apply in this case. It was more in response to the generalized statement about jurors being idiots.
It doesn't matter that it's extreme. It matters that it directly addresses the issue. Taking logic to extremes is frequently required to show why a given path should or should not be taken. This particular one provides stark clarity, in that it exactly mirrors why your husband could be correctly dismissed. The only difference is that your case involved a fundamentalist sect the attorney wasn't familiar with, whereas (some of) the biases of Westboro members are plainly evident. An unknown fundamentalist sect, in this matter, can only be compared to the tendencies of other, more well-known sects as the tenets are not common knowledge.
The issue is whether someone's religion can bias their opinion in a matter that could affect the outcome of a case.
That example clearly shows it can, which means there are almost certainly going to be lesser degrees that also bias a juror. Much of voir dire is about perception, not necessarily about how a potential juror will actually perform. Nobody knows how they'll actually perform, so they can only remove those biases they perceive might exist.
Westboro fundamentalists exist. Period. Their bias is simply clear to everyone who encounters them. Other fundamentalist organizations have clear biases. Should Muslims be dismissed? In general no, but we weren't talking about Christians in general being dismissed either. That's a cop-out question to attack my argument on an emotional level, rather than actually answering the question. Should a fundamentalist Muslim be dismissed in the trial of a Hacid? Yes, more than likely. Said Muslim may have no problem putting aside his religious differences, but there are thousands or more who wouldn't. In all your "examples," you're generalizing and leaving out the potential for conflict to exist, either by appearance or actual fact. There are instances in every one of those examples where dismissal is appropriate. Your husband wasn't disqualified from serving on any jury. He was disqualified from serving on that particular jury. There is an enormous difference. The former is general prejudice, which would be inappropriate. The latter is because of the circumstances of one particular case. There were likely dozens of other cases that, if he had randomly been assigned to instead, his religion would not have been an issue in. I didn't say I'd dismiss him in every case, just that I would more than likely do so in that particular case.
You don't seem to understand that attorneys can't know everything about your particular brand of religion. That can be a bigmust err on the side of caution in order that a fair trial be preserved. When you're questioning dozens (or in a busy court, hundreds) of potential jurors, the luxury to ask a dozen questions to resolve just one potential bias issue should be weighed against the time required of everyone else who is required to be there under penalty of law.
Let me use an example that might clear my argument up a bit:
Do you believe an attorney should fail to challenge a juror who belongs to the Westboro Baptist Church in the trial of a man who is openly gay? Or that the challenge should be overruled by the presiding judge?
After all, they're entitled to their religious beliefs, and dismissing them because of those beliefs is wrong, correct?
If it's alright to dismiss them, let's admit that a grey area exists where an attorney could have a genuine concern that might not actually turn out to be correct. Should we err on the side of caution so someone gets a fair trial, or should we be PC and not hurt the prospective juror's pride? Which is more important?
If it's not alright to dismiss them, I have nothing left to say to you in regard to this matter.
Gah, forgot to format with HTML. I apologize for the wall of unformatted text.
Again:
If there is reason to believe those beliefs might interfere with the ability to judge someone else impartially, absolutely yes. The freedom of religion needs to be balanced among all parties. The juror loses nothing. The defendant might lose their life.
"Belief" is at the very core of why voire dire exists. It is there specifically to ensure that certain beliefs do not taint the jury pool. If there is any reason to believe a person may hold bias against any party they should be dismissed. Not only does that include religious beliefs, it should specifically guard against bias in religious beliefs because they tend to be so pervasive in regard to those who hold them. The more closely-held the belief, the more close the scrutiny should be regarding whether that belief will impact the ability to render impartial judgement.
The rest of your comment is hyperbole that has no actual bearing on the topic. You can apparently only see your own side, and not how the greater ramifications could make a very real, very negative impact on the life of someone who might be innocent of the charges levied against them. Maybe not because of your husband, but because of someone like him, but only very slightly different (in that they have no compunctions regarding holding their beliefs against one who does not believe the same). If you don't believe there are numerous fundamentalists (of any religion) out there who would do such, you are naive in the extreme.
If there is reason to believe those beliefs might interfere with the ability to judge someone else impartially, absolutely yes. The freedom of religion needs to be balanced among all parties. The juror loses nothing. The defendant might lose their life. "Belief" is at the very core of why voire dire exists. It is there specifically to ensure that certain beliefs do not taint the jury pool. If there is any reason to believe a person may hold bias against any party they should be dismissed. Not only does that include religious beliefs, it should specifically guard against bias in religious beliefs because they tend to be so pervasive in regard to those who hold them. The more closely-held the belief, the more close the scrutiny should be regarding whether that belief will impact the ability to render impartial judgement. The rest of your comment is hyperbole that has no actual bearing on the topic. You can apparently only see your own side, and not how the greater ramifications could make a very real, very negative impact on the life of someone who might be innocent of the charges levied against them. Maybe not because of your husband, but because of someone like him, but only very slightly different (in that they have no compunctions regarding holding their beliefs against one who does not believe the same). If you don't believe there are numerous fundamentalists (of any religion) out there who would do such, you are naive in the extreme.
It has a lot to do with freedom of religion, and nothing to do with (in)tolerance. The defendant is free to not have his religious choices count against him. Since an attorney has little time to determine bias in prospective jurors, the dismissal request was eminently reasonable. Most fundamentalists are intolerant of those who hold views contrary to their own. There are only a few notable exceptions, though certainly many that are much less notable (such as yours, apparently). The Hacidim and the Amish come to mind, and not many others. Even the tolerance of those groups only extends so far.
We had no desire to enforce our beliefs on others; if one wanted to join and abide by our rules, fine. If not, fine.
Without knowing this beforehand, most people will (rightly, in most cases) assume the exact opposite to be true.
Also, "presume" only has negative colloquial connotations. It has no such when used in a legal sense. Quite the opposite, frequently.
They've created a lot of overlap, much of which is propably an attempt to skirt protections afforded defendants in criminal matters. The judge shouldn't be deciding the award in the case of a civil judgement. Since it is the state imposing the quantity, it should be considered a fine regardless of who it is payable to.
The part about his children is hyperbole, at least for the meantime. It's unlikely he'll ever have assets substantial enough to pass on to his children, and when he dies the debt is erased. More than likely, they'll grow up learning to view the government in a way much different than their peers. Hopefully, anyway.
Yes, they can. He also won't be able to keep funds in a bank account, as they can move to have them seized (no, it's not difficult, either). He'll never be able to own anything more substantial than personal household possessions and a single vehicle. Anything else would be subject to seizure.
Ah, lawful neutral. As morally bankrupt as any evil alignment, but with the hypocritical pretense of serving a greater good.
What's sad is it occurs even in states where jury nullification is specifically protected by the state's Constitution. One such state is Oregon, where the jury pamphlet and the Constitution stand in direct contradiction of the other.
Oregon Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 16:
Excessive bail and fines; cruel and unusual punishments; power of jury in criminal case. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed. Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted, but all penalties shall be proportioned to the offense.–In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases.
Oregon Jury Pamphlet
What does the judge do?
The trial judge presides over the trial and decides what laws apply. The judge then instructs the jury as to the correct law in each case. Although some people may claim that a jury can “nullify” the law, this view is legally incorrect and severely prejudices the administration of justice. Jurors who disregard the trial judge’s instructions have violated their oath.
If I were an attorney during voire dire, I'd more than likely move for a dismissal of your husband for cause too. The presumption of prejudice is eminently reasonable when a religious fundamentalist is involved. There is all of human history to lend credence to a lack of ability to compromise when a fundamentalist's beliefs may come into play.
This is why I go out of my way to not avoid jury service. Unfortunately, chemotherapy made opting out unavoidable for me when called this year.
Intelligent people who avoid jury duty because it is an inconvenience are being extraordinarily selfish, though perhaps unintentionally so.
That said, juries are frequently instructed in a very narrow manner. Many cases end up with jurors stating that, if they had been allowed to hear mitigating circumstances they would not have found the way they did. This frequently happens in marijuana cases brought in Federal courts, as they do not allow the use of illness as a defense. Jurors only learn afterward that someone suffers debilitating nausea from cancer, which can't be controlled by conventional anti-emetics. An example of this is when the United States murdered Peter McWilliams.
constitutional guidance as far as monetary fines go
See 8th Amendment, specifically nor excessive fines imposed.
Any reasonable person, which was and should be the test for the above, should consider $675,000 to be an excessive fine for the alleged crime.