you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 41 points 1 month ago (15 children)

    nor should it

    Hard disagree there. How to create such a system is a separate question though, that much I will grant.

    would indeed be unjust

    It wouldn’t be “correct” in the application of the law. That wouldn’t make it unjust necessarily. Law is not the same as justice, it’s just our best effort.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    Law in capitalist countries is not an effort towards justice, it is an effort towards protecting private property and the rights of capitalists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (10 children)

    The law, incidentally, is also what makes it illegal for said capitalists to kill you for example. Why do you think they always want their industries deregulated, E.g when it comes to safety regulations.

    Doesn't get much better under communism either since party elites are allowed to do anything they want and enrich themselves in the process.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    The law, incidentally, is also what makes it illegal for said capitalists to kill you for example

    This only limits certain actions, not killing in general. There are ways that capitalists legally kill people all the time, like by enforcing car-centric infrastructure or with climate change or by refusing necessary healthcare in privatized healthcare systems or by evicting tenants.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Yes, but under libertarianism that would all be legal. So I'm not sure life without laws would be all that much better than life with laws. Would give even more power to the elites.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    I'm just saying that the legal system is not here to protect the working class against capitalists, it's there to (1) protect capitalists from the working class, (2) moderate conflicts between capitalists. This means that some particularly gruesome activities are moderated to prevent outright revolts, but less visible killings are permitted.

    If we want to make a legal system that actually protects the working class, the first thing it needs to do is prohibit private property over means of production to prevent unlimited capital accumulation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Who went to jail for PFOA's?

    Who went to jail after the 2008 debacle that almost crashed the world economy?

    Laws in capitalistic countries protect capital. You are a fool for not understanding this.

    Safety regulations are there to protect capital as well because without healthy safe workers you will not be able to run your business.

    Ask yourself why safety is routed through HR in your company.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    So you've got no examples of what happens under capitalism happening under communism, yet seem very sure about it being an inevitable outcome.

    Oh God you're an AI enthusiast?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Those laws are always temporary under capitalism, just look at the deregulation happening now in the US. Meanwhile China has gradually been improving its worker protections for almost a century, with almost no setbacks.

    And speaking of China, if you are a senior party member of the CPC and you use it to enrich yourself, you get executed. As usual, accusations of communist misdeeds by capitalists are just confessions.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    This is the value of jury trials, the people get a chance to decide what is just. What's the point in having a justice system that results in outcomes the vast majority would consider unjust.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    That's part of their job. Anything that's more prejudicial than probative, anything that isn't relevant to the charges, anything that has no verifiable source, that all gets tossed if the judge is doing their job. And that's not an exhaustive list.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Yeah which is a good thing for fairness, and then the fact the jury decided based on more than what was allowed alone was also a representation of a public desire for real justice

    I think everyone played their roles

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    University of Birmingham disagrees: https://academic.oup.com/ojls/article/45/2/329/8078322?login=false they say that it should be a legal defence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    I'm sorry. You're beliefs don't matter. Only facts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago (49 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    That's a little bit misleading, they're supposed to determine the facts based on the evidence, then provide a verdict.

    When giving a verdict they can take into account the severity of the penalty and the circumstances of the crime.

    I think a jury should hear the motivation for the defendant's actions: as a counterexample consider a defendant on trial for breaking their parole (under freedom of movement), but who did so to rescue people from a burning building. A jury would have to hear the motivation to take this into account.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    The impartiality of juries only extends to what happens within the courtroom, they must not be swayed by anything that happens outside it. Everything else is fair game, including testimony.

    Juries have the absolute right to acquit a defendant according to their conscience, which has been a principal of law for over 300 years. Your experience and consideration doesn't get to decide for the jury what their decision must be.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (19 children)

    Why would you need a jury to determine facts?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    It's a valid question. If this were about fact finding, a judge should be more capable than random people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Juries shouldn't only decide on what the law says and the facts, but also on their sense of justice applied to a specific case.

    No, I won't justify my answer. Go read a book

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (6 children)

    If you can't justify it, I'm obviously not going to change my mind. I've read many books and done my own thinking. I'm sure it's a huge surprise that someone could have thought about something and come to a different conclusion than you

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)

    You're welcome to go and read a Wikipedia article or textbook. I'm not going to do your work for you. Tired of explaining and justifying my position and I'll imply others are ignorant instead

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    You're not listening:

    I’ve read many books and done my own thinking.

    Piss off if you're not going to read what I write.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    You think you're the only one who reads books and does their own thinking?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (6 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    That turned into an opinion pretty quick

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (18 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (15 children)

    More of a strict letter of the law than a spirit of the law kinda guy, eh?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (13 children)

    The entire concept of the law is for people to air their grievances in court, instead of airing out each other's skulls. Do you think motivation is irrelevant to crime?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    Motivation absolutely matters in all circumstances.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (9 children)

    Can you name a single crime where the offense is not either enchanted or mitigated by motivation?

    I can't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Really? Then why are voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, manslaughter 1, manslaughter 2, manslaughter 3, murder 1, and murder 2 all separate crimes, when (without motivation) the crime is just killing someone you weren't supposed to kill?

    Kinda sounds like all those distinctions can be collapsed down to murder, right?

    Why have varying sentences for crimes?

    Matter of fact, why is mens rea even taught in law school?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    Oh. So which of the types of murder should he be convicted of, for accurate sentencing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    Well. Someone died. You said the conviction requires no knowledge of motivation. Which of the 5-7 separate and distinct crimes of varying severity do we convict them of, and how do we decide without knowing motivation? (Like, "premeditated")

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    Everything is relevant when you're deciding the guilt or innocence of a man being pressed under the boot of the state.

    Fuck the law, when it is unjust and immoral we must fight to change it or, in this case, at least realize it and use jury nullification as it was intended.

  • source
  • parent