943
Luigi in court today (lemmy.world)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/luigimangione@lemmy.world
184 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 276 points 11 months ago (29 children)

I'm so glad we have actual freedom of speech on Lemmy

No fucking auto-mods to ban us for mentioning a person's name because it hurts advertising revenue

Also I don't think there's a jury in the entire United States that would actually convict Luigi

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 29 child comments
    •
  • [–] 119 points 11 months ago (10 children)

    I mean, have you kinda ignored the whole of US politics? Finding 12 people that will have him killed is easy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 54 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah exactly. I’m not as optimistic. But hopefully his lawyer doesn’t let the prosecution stack the jury.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

    Good thing we thought of that already (250 years ago or so) and don't let the prosecution just pick whoever they want to be on the jury.

    Here, have a read: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/jury-selection-criminal-cases.html

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    I'm mistaken, then, sounda as well thought out as the rest of the US system, like the winner-takes-all "democracy."

    Man, those guys 250 years ago were so smart! Like so smart you should never ever do anything differently than they'd do it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    It's a pretty bedrock part of every nation with trials by jury that the accusers don't get to unilaterally select the jury. "Finding 12 people that will have him killed" would as you said, be easy. So would finding 12 people that would not. That's why the prosecution and the defense are given equal powers to appoint and reject jurors, in a process that sometimes goes on longer than the actual trial.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    It’s interesting to me to note the differences in jury selection between the US and Australia: here in Aus (at least in my state of NSW) both sides get to strike jurors, but there isn’t a round of questioning - it’s purely based on physical appearance - and each side only gets three challenges (per accused person). That means for most trials, those with only one defendant, at least six of the original randomly selected jurors will end up serving.

    I’ve done jury service twice - once I was part of the original 12 and wasn’t challenged, and the other time I replaced the last challenged juror but each side only ended up challenging two.

    I feel like not being able to question jurors and having limited strikes makes the system far more random and, therefore, more just in terms of the jury being a random selection of citizens.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)

    That is really interesting the differences there. I think the intended goal of the US system is to make sure that you get 12 people capable of being objective about the subject at hand, rather than 12 random people. For example, it usually takes all 12 jurors to make a conviction, so if you get just one person who won't convict no matter what because of religious reasons or pre-existing biases or whatever, then automatically you have a hung jury that can't be swayed by evidence. So the US system tries to insure we get 12 people who are willing to put aside their biases and be objective (enough) to render a verdict based on the facts before them either way the facts lead. So it's a long process, but in our system anyway we try to weed out anybody who might believe, for example, that all Mexicans are criminals if it's a Mexican on trial, or someone who doesn't believe that rape should be a crime in a rape case. And the big one of course, people who are already so convinced by media they've consumed that the person is guilty that they can't act as a fair juror.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    Yeah, it seems clear that the goals are different and so the methods of selection have to be different in order to try to achieve those goals. I wonder if there are any statistics available to determine what approach results in more accurate results in terms of convictions! Personally I see the merit in both approaches, and potentially in other approaches to the jury selection process.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 37 points 11 months ago (12 children)

    lemmy.ml joined the chat

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    Never been banned by an .ml mod. Now .world? Some real psychos there.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 32 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    I recieved both a ban and a death threat from a .ml mod.

    My opinion was that Harris would have been better than Trump. I even included that I didn't even like her or the democrats. I just view them as, unfortunately, the better option right now.

    They told me I should be executed and thrown in a pit with the rest of the garbage (ie the other people they view as undesirable) and promptly banned. It was a crazy escalation

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    I've had the opposite experience. I was mobbed and then site-banned by .ml for mildly criticizing communism in China and defending my opinion. But the hateful, rule-breaking comments, the derision, the incivility--all of that stayed up right where it was.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    lol lemmy.ml wouldn’t ban someone for posting about Luigi, are you being for real right now?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 25 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Maybe not Luigi specifically, but freedom of speech on ml is... questionable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago

    I agree, although I feel like that's across the board for Lemmy. Mods aren't all joining together and discussing the rules they will enforce. Every community has its own idea of how moderation works, and we all do what we see fit or please. I've seen some stupid shit on the modlogs everywhere, often using the ban and remove content feature that essentially scrubs the user's history, which imo should be fixed.

    I do feel like .ml takes that to an extreme, though. Like, what do you mean you can't criticize Russia or China without being banned by an admin? Dessalines is especially guilty of this, and the other admins deflect and defend his behavior.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    I’m so glad we have actual freedom of speech on Lemmy

    Eh....

    Have to go to .ml to properly comment about american imperialism and other things that jordan doesn't like.

    Have to go anywhere but .ml (except slurping up more of that .world slop) to properly criticize china, russia, or north korea.

    Have to go to hexbear to see my pig shit on pig balls.

    Have to go to tiny, one user communities to see insane harry potter fan fics....

    What is this world coming to? Why can't I have it all? Free speech? 6/10, provides a minimum, but could be better. Would use again.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent