Home Free
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
>Habitual criminals should continue to terrorize innocents such as yourself and your family, and you wouldn't even call the police?
One of these sentences is a reasonable, if a bit reductive, summary of the GP's point. The other is wild hyperbole.
Fully half of the comment I'm replying to is total nonsense, putting words in another's mouth, disingenuously representing another's opinion in the hope of making that person seem monstrous.
To what end, gwkoehler? Is your position so tenuous that you feel you must misrepresent your opponent's? If your comments weren't an attempt at a counterargument, is it really so important to tell kiliantics that you disagree with his opinion and wish to paint it as unwise?
This is one of the best examples of what the stats folks call a type I vs type II error. To understand why this point is correct, simply consider where the actual criminal is in each of the two cases - they're free. When imprisoning an innocent person, it truly is a double error (type I): the innocent person went to jail, and the guilty person STILL went free.
It's certainly not the only way to do this empirically (which is why stats can seem like such a hodgepodge of competing perspectives), but it's the core framework that the hard sciences seemed to settle on in the 20th century.
High level math-stats is a cool subject, I think that in some ways machine learning can be seen as picking up at the boundary of these 'traditional' methods. For example, if I don't care to really distinguish between false-positives and false-negatives, then you end up with something that will look more like an SVM than a test of hypotheses.
A) They can't be punished for their verdict B) They can, and should, consider the rule of law, and not just the veracity of the evidence as is often directed by the judge C) They have the authority to say "okay, the evidence shows the defendant is guilty, but we don't think the law is a just one, so we're going to acquit."
Sometimes, that power is used for good (not convicting those who helped runaway slaves, for example, or not convicting minor drug offenses, keeping our disgustingly overcrowded county jails from adding to their rolls) and sometimes not (the officers acquitted despite video evidence of their beating Rodney King).
It is, however, an exemplar of the checks-and-balances meant to constrain a government that may otherwise overstep its boundaries to violate a citizen's rights. While the rights afforded to a jury are in danger of changing, they haven't changed yet, and potential jurors everywhere in the US should read up more on their rights and responsibilities as a juror.
I would call jury nullification a form of civil disobedience. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it's just not really operating inside the judicial framework. There's a reason the Supreme Court has consistently held that the defense does not have the right to inform the jury of their right to nullify.
or in other words, an intended side-effect.
But if you just don't want to serve, don't waste everyone's time-- just say you can't be objective, or better, give a hardship excuse before the court date.
There's the problem. There shouldn't be a statute of limitations on police malfeasance any more than there is one on murder. Police officers who perjure themselves to obtain convictions should be executed.
This was New York in the 80s and 90s, the Rudy Giuliani era, "no broken windows", tough on crime mentality. The town was traumatized by more than a thousand murders every year. Everyone was desperate for convicts, from the voters to the attorneys, the politicians and jurors. No one had patience to "due process". It was a war.
That era has been praised as a victory for law enforcement. Black Lives Matter and others are now showing the real cost of it. No wonder Giuliani freaks out about BLM.
I challenge your view that jurors and voters would approve of abandoning due process. Sure they wanted convictions of criminals. But not at the cost of faked confessions, lying under oauth, false testimony by law enforcement. It's easy to see that leads to chaos. No one signed up for that, except the watchmen.
It takes serious cognitive dissonance to be able to say something like that with a straight face.
If anyone ever said those words to me, I would do my best to never, ever, interact with them. It's prime facia a false statement, and anyone who can say it with conviction (assuming they are an adult) must necessarily be a liar.
I've done plenty of things wrong, I've broken the law countless times (which, really is nothing special, literally everyone has, but I've done it knowingly and willfully), I've inadvertently burned bridges (figuratively, of course) and offended people deeply that I never meant to.
No one is perfect, anyone who says (and appears to believe) that they are is a menace to society.
Obviously, it would be nice if injustice never occurred. But injustices do occur and it is far worse when we would rather pretend it doesn't happen than to own up and do what we can to redress them.