Yes, that is what the Governor said, however, the site was up before this and accessed before this
Was it accessed before this on the capitol's guest network? Or was it accessed 'before this' via the local Starbuck's free wifi or similar, or somebody's MiFi?
Also worth noting is the tweet they posted earlier today: "Our site is down due to server migration. Will be back up shortly." Possible that somebody updated a DNS entry in the past day or two, resulting in the site being pushed off the whitelist? Perhaps.
I agree with the point that this site shouldn't have been blocked for political reasons, but the data we have so far falls far short of making the case that that's what actually happened. All we have is a screen shot of a Chrome error page, and a lot of rhetoric. And, the site was added to the whitelist and access restored quickly - if they were going to block it intentionally, I find it hard to believe they'd reverse the block so quickly at the first sign of an outcry. From the moment they decided to block it, they had to have expected it would cause a shit storm if people noticed, and the quick correction gains them nothing - they take the hit for being "censors," and they gain nothing from the block - it's a net-negative, politically speaking.
True, though some sort of review that indicates the scope of the problem might be more helpful than a couple individual examples.
As I said above, the question becomes one of logistics and administration: if we were to move to a truly, completely random jury (aside from ruling out a few objective criteria, e.g. prior felonies & mental illness), how large does it need to be to achieve the golden mean? And if the number required for achieving a statistically valid expectation of that desirable "average" opinion is too large - what then? Either we restrict the jury to a manageable size and maintain a more aggressive voir dire process, or we accept that our juries will, at least some % of the time, not reflect "average" sentiment or belief because they are not large enough to assume that they are representative of the population they come from.
how about we consider only weeding out juror candidates based on an objective standard (felonies, insanity, etc.), and take the rest warts/opinions and all?
Sure, as I said elsewhere, I certainly wouldn't disagree with raising standards for dismissal, or even reducing the number of peremptory challenges - make each one count more.
If we were to restrict all challenges to only a small set of objective criteria, however, the question becomes whether or not the jury size is large enough that you can reasonably expect a "golden mean" that's reflective of an impartial public's decision if the jury composition is *entirely* random. The smaller the jury size, the easier it is for a couple people with strong opinions to skew its decision and discussion. So the question would then become - how large should the jury be, and does the minimum statistically valid jury size present logistical and administrative issues that would prevent it from being a reasonable alternative? And if so... how do you address those issues?
Sure, that wasn't intended to be a comprehensive review. My point was that there is actually no right to a jury "of your peers" listed in the constitution, since there seems to be a lot of "it's my right to a jury of my peers, and my peers aren't the great unwashed masses, it's smart people in the IT industry," in this thread. The jury is supposed to be impartial, and under the law, your "peers" are your fellow citizens, not whatever narrowly defined interest group people are trying to set up as the only people capable of judging their guilt.
There's no practical way (and no valid rational reason) to limit a peer group to "IT professionals only" unless the argument is made for expert juries, and expert juries come with a host of other possible issues and abuses, and I think we're in agreement that expert juries would be worse than the current system.
Higher standards for voire dire dismissal would certainly be a reasonable thing, but you did seem to be advocating for the notion of "qualified" experts on the jury, as well. I read your initial post that way, it sounds like bws111 also interpreted it that way.
Peremptory challenges aren't an endless process, however - each side generally has a set number of peremptory challenges they can use, and other dismissals must be "for cause" - so, the defense and prosecution both get to remove a few people that they consider likely to be hostile to their case, and then beyond that, they must provide a justification that shows how the juror isn't able to be impartial, and the judge must agree with that assessment.
I'm not sure that your two links to two decisions from 2007 really support your assertion that there's "widespread abuse" going on as a result of the voire-dire process as it stands today -- 1) The first is an appellate court decision which remands the case to the trial court for a new trial: in other words, the "abuse" of the voire-dire process was corrected on appeal, and a new trial was ordered. To me, this sounds like the system is absolutely working as designed, and where a court makes an incorrect interpretation of statute, they are overruled on appeal; 2) The second is, again, an appellate decision. In it, several issues are considered, including the dismissal of jurors, in which the defense asserts that several jurors who were dismissed "for cause" should have counted towards peremptory challenges, and that 2 other dismissals should have been disallowed under peremptory dismissal as a result of the defendants' Batson motion. The appeals court disagreed with both of these motions, citing numerous decisions which support the dismissal of the jurors.
So, one decision finds an issue with the juror selection and issues a retrial; another finds no issues, and that the system worked as intended, and in accordance with established precedent. Neither really show that there is some sort of systemic abuse as a result of the voire-dire process.
He's pointing out that your argument seems to be in favor of a "qualified/export" jury of "peers," and that this is a dangerous road to go down.
If you're ever accused of rape, would you want a jury comprised of rape victims and criminal psychologists, who are, after all, "experts" in the particular domains you're on trial for? Likewise, would it be a fair trial if the jury was comprised only of people who had been accused of rape in the past?
If you ever accuse your doctor of malpractice and negligence, would you want a jury to be comprised only of doctors and nurses? Or, if you were a doctor, would you want to see the jury comprised solely of people who had been victims of medical malpractice in the past?
Want only police officers judging your case against a local police department for police brutality, or people who've been subjected to police brutality judging your case if you're the defendant in that suit?
Suddenly, the "disinterested, wishy-washy, no-opinion" doesn't sound so bad, does it?
Given that prosecution & defense counsel both get a set (generally low) number of peremptory challenges, and other dismissals MUST be done "for cause" - e.g., a potential juror has displayed a bias or attitude which would interfere with his or her ability to be impartial - the net result is that you should end up with a group of people who are, at the very least, have professed that they can view the facts of the case with an impartial eye.
It's worth noting that you have no constitutional right to a jury "of your peers".
The constitution dictates the following regarding juries: 1) Criminal trials must be conducted by jury; (Article 3, Section 2) 2) The right to a "speedy and public trial," by an impartial jury, in addition to some other requirements of the trial; (6th Amendment) 3) Certain federal civil trials (over amounts > $20) guarantee a jury trial; (7th Amendment)
In the ideal sense, a jury of your "peers" would be a random sampling of other citizens - we are all supposed to be equal under the law, and the practice of bringing in "expert juries" is problematic because it could set up protected classes of people for whom specific laws simply don't apply through tacit agreement not to enforce them. Think this could be a problem if a panel of doctors always sit in judgement of malpractice cases, for example? I sure do.
You can argue for a less-invasive voire-dire process, like they have in the UK, where a much stricter justification is required to dismiss a juror, but arguing for expert juries seems like a dangerous road to go down as well. Expert witnesses should be able to explain the issues to lay people. You don't need to know how to perform bypass surgery yourself to understand the facts of a case involving a botched bypass operation. You don't need to know how to construct a routing table on Linux and design a normalized database to be able to understand an issue involving an IT professional refusing to turn over passwords when he is reassigned. Lay people *can* understand these things, and it is the job of the prosecution & defense (along with the expert witnesses they call) to make the facts clear.
I have nothing to prove to you. And why are you so insistent on me being a "fag" - hoping to score? Sorry to disappoint you, APK, but, psychotic and male isn't exactly my type.
Or it could be that I have nothing to prove to a raving lunatic whose sole source of excitement appears to be talking about how he edited a hosts file once.
And Apple doesn't stop you from signing up and subscribing on the last.fm web site, thus allowing last.fm to retain 100% of all profits generated by the subscription.
Of course, that requires last.fm to maintain their own customer tracking and billing system, too, which will cost them money.
The only "restriction" is that you can't say "Sign up on the web site, for $10, or right here in the app for $20!" -- the terms must be identical.
Slashdot Mirror
Was it accessed before this on the capitol's guest network? Or was it accessed 'before this' via the local Starbuck's free wifi or similar, or somebody's MiFi?
Also worth noting is the tweet they posted earlier today: "Our site is down due to server migration. Will be back up shortly." Possible that somebody updated a DNS entry in the past day or two, resulting in the site being pushed off the whitelist? Perhaps.
I agree with the point that this site shouldn't have been blocked for political reasons, but the data we have so far falls far short of making the case that that's what actually happened. All we have is a screen shot of a Chrome error page, and a lot of rhetoric. And, the site was added to the whitelist and access restored quickly - if they were going to block it intentionally, I find it hard to believe they'd reverse the block so quickly at the first sign of an outcry. From the moment they decided to block it, they had to have expected it would cause a shit storm if people noticed, and the quick correction gains them nothing - they take the hit for being "censors," and they gain nothing from the block - it's a net-negative, politically speaking.
True, though some sort of review that indicates the scope of the problem might be more helpful than a couple individual examples.
As I said above, the question becomes one of logistics and administration: if we were to move to a truly, completely random jury (aside from ruling out a few objective criteria, e.g. prior felonies & mental illness), how large does it need to be to achieve the golden mean? And if the number required for achieving a statistically valid expectation of that desirable "average" opinion is too large - what then? Either we restrict the jury to a manageable size and maintain a more aggressive voir dire process, or we accept that our juries will, at least some % of the time, not reflect "average" sentiment or belief because they are not large enough to assume that they are representative of the population they come from.
Sure, as I said elsewhere, I certainly wouldn't disagree with raising standards for dismissal, or even reducing the number of peremptory challenges - make each one count more.
If we were to restrict all challenges to only a small set of objective criteria, however, the question becomes whether or not the jury size is large enough that you can reasonably expect a "golden mean" that's reflective of an impartial public's decision if the jury composition is *entirely* random. The smaller the jury size, the easier it is for a couple people with strong opinions to skew its decision and discussion. So the question would then become - how large should the jury be, and does the minimum statistically valid jury size present logistical and administrative issues that would prevent it from being a reasonable alternative? And if so... how do you address those issues?
Sure, that wasn't intended to be a comprehensive review. My point was that there is actually no right to a jury "of your peers" listed in the constitution, since there seems to be a lot of "it's my right to a jury of my peers, and my peers aren't the great unwashed masses, it's smart people in the IT industry," in this thread. The jury is supposed to be impartial, and under the law, your "peers" are your fellow citizens, not whatever narrowly defined interest group people are trying to set up as the only people capable of judging their guilt.
There's no practical way (and no valid rational reason) to limit a peer group to "IT professionals only" unless the argument is made for expert juries, and expert juries come with a host of other possible issues and abuses, and I think we're in agreement that expert juries would be worse than the current system.
Higher standards for voire dire dismissal would certainly be a reasonable thing, but you did seem to be advocating for the notion of "qualified" experts on the jury, as well. I read your initial post that way, it sounds like bws111 also interpreted it that way.
Peremptory challenges aren't an endless process, however - each side generally has a set number of peremptory challenges they can use, and other dismissals must be "for cause" - so, the defense and prosecution both get to remove a few people that they consider likely to be hostile to their case, and then beyond that, they must provide a justification that shows how the juror isn't able to be impartial, and the judge must agree with that assessment.
I'm not sure that your two links to two decisions from 2007 really support your assertion that there's "widespread abuse" going on as a result of the voire-dire process as it stands today --
1) The first is an appellate court decision which remands the case to the trial court for a new trial: in other words, the "abuse" of the voire-dire process was corrected on appeal, and a new trial was ordered. To me, this sounds like the system is absolutely working as designed, and where a court makes an incorrect interpretation of statute, they are overruled on appeal;
2) The second is, again, an appellate decision. In it, several issues are considered, including the dismissal of jurors, in which the defense asserts that several jurors who were dismissed "for cause" should have counted towards peremptory challenges, and that 2 other dismissals should have been disallowed under peremptory dismissal as a result of the defendants' Batson motion. The appeals court disagreed with both of these motions, citing numerous decisions which support the dismissal of the jurors.
So, one decision finds an issue with the juror selection and issues a retrial; another finds no issues, and that the system worked as intended, and in accordance with established precedent. Neither really show that there is some sort of systemic abuse as a result of the voire-dire process.
He's pointing out that your argument seems to be in favor of a "qualified/export" jury of "peers," and that this is a dangerous road to go down.
If you're ever accused of rape, would you want a jury comprised of rape victims and criminal psychologists, who are, after all, "experts" in the particular domains you're on trial for? Likewise, would it be a fair trial if the jury was comprised only of people who had been accused of rape in the past?
If you ever accuse your doctor of malpractice and negligence, would you want a jury to be comprised only of doctors and nurses? Or, if you were a doctor, would you want to see the jury comprised solely of people who had been victims of medical malpractice in the past?
Want only police officers judging your case against a local police department for police brutality, or people who've been subjected to police brutality judging your case if you're the defendant in that suit?
Suddenly, the "disinterested, wishy-washy, no-opinion" doesn't sound so bad, does it?
Given that prosecution & defense counsel both get a set (generally low) number of peremptory challenges, and other dismissals MUST be done "for cause" - e.g., a potential juror has displayed a bias or attitude which would interfere with his or her ability to be impartial - the net result is that you should end up with a group of people who are, at the very least, have professed that they can view the facts of the case with an impartial eye.
It's worth noting that you have no constitutional right to a jury "of your peers".
The constitution dictates the following regarding juries:
1) Criminal trials must be conducted by jury; (Article 3, Section 2)
2) The right to a "speedy and public trial," by an impartial jury, in addition to some other requirements of the trial; (6th Amendment)
3) Certain federal civil trials (over amounts > $20) guarantee a jury trial; (7th Amendment)
In the ideal sense, a jury of your "peers" would be a random sampling of other citizens - we are all supposed to be equal under the law, and the practice of bringing in "expert juries" is problematic because it could set up protected classes of people for whom specific laws simply don't apply through tacit agreement not to enforce them. Think this could be a problem if a panel of doctors always sit in judgement of malpractice cases, for example? I sure do.
You can argue for a less-invasive voire-dire process, like they have in the UK, where a much stricter justification is required to dismiss a juror, but arguing for expert juries seems like a dangerous road to go down as well. Expert witnesses should be able to explain the issues to lay people. You don't need to know how to perform bypass surgery yourself to understand the facts of a case involving a botched bypass operation. You don't need to know how to construct a routing table on Linux and design a normalized database to be able to understand an issue involving an IT professional refusing to turn over passwords when he is reassigned. Lay people *can* understand these things, and it is the job of the prosecution & defense (along with the expert witnesses they call) to make the facts clear.
Sorry to disappoint, bro. Got a date, you'll have to amuse yourself for the rest of the night!
What's with calling me a "fag" anyway APK? I wish you'd stop projecting your desires onto me. It just makes you look pathetic and desperate. :(
No I will not touch your penis. Stop asking me to.
you just want my name so you can look me up and try to seduce me. No thanks, brah.
No, I will not date you.
YAWN
LOL
This isn't funny or amusing. It's boring. You're boring us all to tears, APK.
COOL STORY BRO!
I have nothing to prove to you. And why are you so insistent on me being a "fag" - hoping to score? Sorry to disappoint you, APK, but, psychotic and male isn't exactly my type.
YAWN.
You finished?
Or it could be that I have nothing to prove to a raving lunatic whose sole source of excitement appears to be talking about how he edited a hosts file once.
Fail more, APK.
BOOOOOOORING.
Wow, 2 posts that say the same thing, but which obviously aren't copies of one another. Are you having a psychotic break?
Now you're just flapping your gums to hear yourself talk. Hope you enjoy it, you off-topic troll!
Diagnosis: APK == OFF TOPIC TROLL.
Prognosis: APK will die unloved and alone.
APK = OFF TOPIC TROLL. Enjoy the downmods, now I understand why you're too chickenshit to sign up for an account.
And Apple doesn't stop you from signing up and subscribing on the last.fm web site, thus allowing last.fm to retain 100% of all profits generated by the subscription.
Of course, that requires last.fm to maintain their own customer tracking and billing system, too, which will cost them money.
The only "restriction" is that you can't say "Sign up on the web site, for $10, or right here in the app for $20!" -- the terms must be identical.