no, better not to back it up. If you say "defendant is not guilty because we find X law in violation of amendment Y' then the prosecution will use the jury's almost-guaranteed-not-to-be-watertight reasoning at appeal to get the verdict thrown out and the question considered by a more incompetent jury. Better to just find for the defence and keep your mouths shut - the jury, after all, cannot be forced to justify their decision - and with no statement of reasoning there is nothing to be argued about later.
no. Jurors on a given case should all be paid at the same rate, set at the usual pay rate of the highest-paid member of the jury. (subject to some cap like $250/day)
that's only for certain terrorism-related charges, and still requires regular judicial approval (Constable Evans can't pick someone up for littering and just leave them in a cell for 28 days). I'm not commenting on whether it's a good system, I'm just pointing out that it's not as bad as you imply.
The original proposal was for 90 days, this failed and 28 days was passed, then (iirc) there was a subsequent unsucessful attempt to up it to 42 days.
until not so long ago (the 1970s iirc) the accused did have anonymity. The calls are essentially for it to be put back where it was. (The accused also need to have the protection of having the allegation scrubbed from their records if they aren't found guilty - currently if the investigating officer thinks that they probably did do it although no conviction was obtained, this is noted in their criminal record and for most purposes is as good as a conviction.)
I agree. Healthcare is a service unlike any other, because without it actual people die. It's not a question of quality of life, it's a question of the existence of life.
The view that people who don't have insurance, or can't afford healthcare should die when they get ill shows the callous disregard for human life, and treatment of people as commodities only to be kept if economically viable that is characteristic of communism.
And before everyone comes out of the woodwork screaming bloody murder about not wanting high taxes like in Europe - the US already has a similar tax burden to Western European countries - it just spends the same size chunk that those countries spend on healthcare on its military. Yes, you're the very strong good guys, and it's probably your green-ranger like presence which keeps the rest of the largely-free world unmolested, and we're very grateful, but do you really need 12 capital aircraft carriers? and more than an order of magnitude more on defence R&D than the next largest spender?
Back in the day, we had a score on our report cards and if we were unwilling to do the required exercises we would get bad grades and a note from the teacher.
I used to pride myself on getting good grades. I didn't care about my PE grade. I meant nothing to me, and I doubt that it would have meant much to my parents either.
f it got out of hand, the parents would be called
1) The parents aren't obliged to turn up (and they're not obliged to stay when they find out it's a whine about PE performance) 2) Sensible parents ought not to be too concerned about bad PE grades
You could also fail your year if you had consistently bad grades in gym and in high school we had gym exams where you were supposed to do certain things you learned throughout the year. It looks kinda bad if somebody fails their year due to gym so we made sure we got through.
A school is an institution of education. Wasting an entire year of education because 'student didn't run around the hall hard enough' does indeed look bad, but it doesn't look bad for who you think it looks bad for.
monitoring heart rate might be a necessary evil to ensure they get enough exercise
I don't see how having that information will help ensure anything. Those who want to hide at the back & do the bare minimum will do that. The other option is for the teacher to become the drill sergeant and try and shout the kid into running laps until their heart rate breaks 150. This, however, will not work & will not garner the teacher much sympathy.
Threatening to sell patents to a third party who will sue you is more subtle than threatening to sue you directly, but the threat is just as potent.
How much of common law is still kicking about in the US legal system? That probably represents blackmail (common law blackmail does not require the threatened action to be illegal, merely harmful to the person threatened)
That Feynman story was brilliant. The chap from the government has the scientists sign over their ideas for $1 with the intention that it's a nominal sum. Feynman then insists that he actually be paid his dollar (as, then, does everyone else) and the poor chap who had to come to collect signatures had to pay out around $50 (this is the 1950s) from his own pocket. I occasionally wonder if he ever got that money back.
then why isn't he forced to hold him with bail that he can reasonably meet? What happens when Childs get $5m together? Does the prosecutor just go and ask for it to be raised to $10m?
I suppose my question is what, functionally, is the difference between being held without bail, and being held with bail deliberately constructed to be so high as to be unmeetable? And if there's no difference, why have the distinction?
You're probably right that the DA can't be sued personally (that's a symptom of the general failure in the US to understand that government != state), but that doesn't mean that the department can't be sued, or that the department can't take action against the individuals responsible for exposing it to liability.
maybe Childs just needs free accomodation for a while. y'know, make your pile, put it in a high-interest bank account, then live on the state's dime for a few years.
or, more importantly, since the prosecution doesn't want him out of jail during the trial, and the judge clearly subscribes to that view, why doesn't he just drop the whole charade of offering him bail that he'll never be able to meet?
and how, pray tell, do you suggest that you 'have an attorney put in an appearance' in a foreign court? It's hard (and expensive) enough to engage an attorney in your own country, let alone in another country 100s of miles away where they speak a different language. No, writing a polite letter to explain that you won't be able to fullfil their totally unreasonable demand for an appearance is quite acceptable, and any judge who thinks otherwise has a major superiority complex.
Come back to me when you've seen a man get a £2000 fine for eating a swan that he'd found after it had flown into a powerline, and been told to dispose of it.
Slashdot Mirror
no, better not to back it up. If you say "defendant is not guilty because we find X law in violation of amendment Y' then the prosecution will use the jury's almost-guaranteed-not-to-be-watertight reasoning at appeal to get the verdict thrown out and the question considered by a more incompetent jury. Better to just find for the defence and keep your mouths shut - the jury, after all, cannot be forced to justify their decision - and with no statement of reasoning there is nothing to be argued about later.
no. Jurors on a given case should all be paid at the same rate, set at the usual pay rate of the highest-paid member of the jury. (subject to some cap like $250/day)
Russia is an observer. So is the US (but they're likely to be turfed from that position because of their poor human rights record).
that's only for certain terrorism-related charges, and still requires regular judicial approval (Constable Evans can't pick someone up for littering and just leave them in a cell for 28 days). I'm not commenting on whether it's a good system, I'm just pointing out that it's not as bad as you imply.
The original proposal was for 90 days, this failed and 28 days was passed, then (iirc) there was a subsequent unsucessful attempt to up it to 42 days.
until not so long ago (the 1970s iirc) the accused did have anonymity. The calls are essentially for it to be put back where it was. (The accused also need to have the protection of having the allegation scrubbed from their records if they aren't found guilty - currently if the investigating officer thinks that they probably did do it although no conviction was obtained, this is noted in their criminal record and for most purposes is as good as a conviction.)
Churchill would have said trousers...
actually, in the UK there are both civil and criminal libel laws, it's just that the latter aren't actually used very often
I agree.
Healthcare is a service unlike any other, because without it actual people die. It's not a question of quality of life, it's a question of the existence of life.
The view that people who don't have insurance, or can't afford healthcare should die when they get ill shows the callous disregard for human life, and treatment of people as commodities only to be kept if economically viable that is characteristic of communism.
And before everyone comes out of the woodwork screaming bloody murder about not wanting high taxes like in Europe - the US already has a similar tax burden to Western European countries - it just spends the same size chunk that those countries spend on healthcare on its military.
Yes, you're the very strong good guys, and it's probably your green-ranger like presence which keeps the rest of the largely-free world unmolested, and we're very grateful, but do you really need 12 capital aircraft carriers? and more than an order of magnitude more on defence R&D than the next largest spender?
I used to pride myself on getting good grades. I didn't care about my PE grade. I meant nothing to me, and I doubt that it would have meant much to my parents either.
1) The parents aren't obliged to turn up (and they're not obliged to stay when they find out it's a whine about PE performance)
2) Sensible parents ought not to be too concerned about bad PE grades
A school is an institution of education. Wasting an entire year of education because 'student didn't run around the hall hard enough' does indeed look bad, but it doesn't look bad for who you think it looks bad for.
I don't see how having that information will help ensure anything. Those who want to hide at the back & do the bare minimum will do that. The other option is for the teacher to become the drill sergeant and try and shout the kid into running laps until their heart rate breaks 150. This, however, will not work & will not garner the teacher much sympathy.
last I heard, a shuttle launch cost ~ $1bn, all told. Dunno about a Soyuz
Impractical - you'll never get the end of the chain through the detector without it going off.
How much of common law is still kicking about in the US legal system? That probably represents blackmail (common law blackmail does not require the threatened action to be illegal, merely harmful to the person threatened)
Or you've invented a turkey, Clive Sinclair.
That Feynman story was brilliant. The chap from the government has the scientists sign over their ideas for $1 with the intention that it's a nominal sum. Feynman then insists that he actually be paid his dollar (as, then, does everyone else) and the poor chap who had to come to collect signatures had to pay out around $50 (this is the 1950s) from his own pocket. I occasionally wonder if he ever got that money back.
And don't forget to reverse the polarity of the auxilliary power.
Infact, do it twice to be sure.
California is adjacent to Mexico. I doubt the Mexicans would be so sympathetic to Dog and his band of pea-brained thugs a second time.
then why isn't he forced to hold him with bail that he can reasonably meet? What happens when Childs get $5m together? Does the prosecutor just go and ask for it to be raised to $10m?
I suppose my question is what, functionally, is the difference between being held without bail, and being held with bail deliberately constructed to be so high as to be unmeetable? And if there's no difference, why have the distinction?
immunity for officials != immunity for the city.
You're probably right that the DA can't be sued personally (that's a symptom of the general failure in the US to understand that government != state), but that doesn't mean that the department can't be sued, or that the department can't take action against the individuals responsible for exposing it to liability.
maybe Childs just needs free accomodation for a while.
y'know, make your pile, put it in a high-interest bank account, then live on the state's dime for a few years.
or, more importantly, since the prosecution doesn't want him out of jail during the trial, and the judge clearly subscribes to that view, why doesn't he just drop the whole charade of offering him bail that he'll never be able to meet?
Perhaps version 1.1 of the app will also show you the nearest place that you can procure a pitchfork & torch...
and how, pray tell, do you suggest that you 'have an attorney put in an appearance' in a foreign court? It's hard (and expensive) enough to engage an attorney in your own country, let alone in another country 100s of miles away where they speak a different language.
No, writing a polite letter to explain that you won't be able to fullfil their totally unreasonable demand for an appearance is quite acceptable, and any judge who thinks otherwise has a major superiority complex.
scrap my last paragraph - didn't even read my own link
Come back to me when you've seen a man get a £2000 fine for eating a swan that he'd found after it had flown into a powerline, and been told to dispose of it.