Congratulations America - you got the president you deserve

parmalee said:
I understand and appreciate the need for the distinctions between civil and criminal cases in our system, but they fail to account for--

well, probably not really. I'm sure there was the awareness by the designers, but what could one do about it?

--the capacity of the jury to distinguish between "preponderance of evidence" and "beyond reasonable doubt."

And, really, I'm sure I could make some sort of academic argument, but practically? No clue. Then there's that whole matter of one side or the other bringing in so-called "experts", who can well be sham practitioners, but can a jury "of one's peers" (mmm-hmmm) reliably discern sham science from viable science, say? Especially a jury comprised of products of American education? I mean, imagine a guy like Trek were on a jury: he would probably nod his head a say he understands what comrpises "evidence", but by all practical indications, he clearly does not.
Click to expand...
Oh, I think there would be some distinction most would make between "preponderance" and "beyond-reasonable-doubt". An adequate distinction? Maybe not in all cases. But bear in mind that in jury trials it takes a unanimous verdict to find someone guilty. So if just one out of the 12 peers is able to make the distinction, and act appropriately upon it, then job's a good'un, so to speak, at least in erring on the side of "not guilty". And sure, the flaw you raise makes a guilty verdict in a civil case less likely (as the juror may think it requires "beyond reasonable doubt"), but that doesn't mean that a guilty verdict in a civil case suggests that level of certainty.

As for "experts", I find the whole "testimony for a fee" to seem unethical, but that's another matter.

And "peers" is often misunderstood. Some have claimed, for example, that Trump could never be tried by a jury of his peers, as you'd need to find 12 billionnaire property-developers etc. But this is incorrect. "Peer" just means a cross-section of impartial people - not people who need be experts in the same field, or at the same social lor political level etc. One could argue that there was no way Trump could achieve impartiality in a jury pool in New York, for example, but that's what jury-selection process is for, and his side had the ability to weed out those his team thought would be biased against him (and of course Trump would decry any guilty verdict against him as being due to bias, not due to the evidence). Whether this works in practice? Hmmm. For people as polarising as Trump, possibly not, but one surely has to trust the system to some extent. There are enough paths to rectifying a ruling you're not ultimately happy with. Maybe he should be more careful of where he commits his crimes in future, or pisses people off to the extent they sue him. Or, for that matter, try a bit harder at not pissing people off in the first place! :)
 
Sarkus said:
As for "experts", I find the whole "testimony for a fee" to seem unethical, but that's another matter.

And "peers" is often misunderstood. Some have claimed, for example, that Trump could never be tried by a jury of his peers, as you'd need to find 12 billionnaire property-developers etc. But this is incorrect. "Peer" just means a cross-section of impartial people - not people who need be experts in the same field, or at the same social lor political level etc. One could argue that there was no way Trump could achieve impartiality in a jury pool in New York, for example, but that's what jury-selection process is for, and his side had the ability to weed out those his team thought would be biased against him (and of course Trump would decry any guilty verdict against him as being due to bias, not due to the evidence). Whether this works in practice? Hmmm. For people as polarising as Trump, possibly not, but one surely has to trust the system to some extent. There are enough paths to rectifying a ruling you're not ultimately happy with. Maybe he should be more careful of where he commits his crimes in future, or pisses people off to the extent they sue him. Or, for that matter, try a bit harder at not pissing people off in the first place! :)
Click to expand...

Overall, I think it's a reasonable system--except for paid "experts" and a few other aspects--but not entirely without problems. But even that aspect of "peers" I find somewhat problematic. Suppose you have a case which is heavily dependent upon certain scientific expertise, say? Shouldn't the "peers" really be people with appropriate education and understanding in those matters?

Have you ever watched The Staircase docu-series? Apart from the prosecution being overly reliant upon their "he's a biiiiisekshulll" "argument", they had the worst science "experts" imaginable-and one guy was officially employed in that capacity, in some sort of forensics analysis unit. (IIRC he was subsequently charged with fabricating evidence, or something of the sort. His bad science remained unchecked, however.)*

Of course, it goes beyond just scientific expertise. A case can be heavily dependent upon a thorough understanding of construction and the construction industry, for instance. I don't know how a system would go about accounting for these matters, really, but it does become especially problematic in a nation wherein knowledge deficits, intrinsic biases, and the like are rampant.


* Apologies--I didn't complete that sentiment. Some of the "science" (in The Staircase) was comically bad. I mean, in other contexts it could easily have been presented as parody. But the jury seemed wholly oblivious to this nonsense. The whole series is worth a watch, but the particular episode that focussed upon the prosecution's forensics expert's testing, in an effort to recreate a scenario wherein a woman would fall in a very particular manner, from like the third or forth step of a staircase, and sustain a fatal head injury was fascinating. And terrifying.
 
Last edited:
parmalee said:
Overall, I think it's a reasonable system--except for paid "experts" and a few other aspects--but not entirely without problems. But even that aspect of "peers" I find somewhat problematic. Suppose you have a case which is heavily dependent upon certain scientific expertise, say? Shouldn't the "peers" really be people with appropriate education and understanding in those matters?
Click to expand...
No, I don't think so. The "experts" should be good enough to explain, with the help of their side's lawyer, the relevant facts, their opinion, and their significance to the case, all at a level that the jury can understand and appreciate. E.g. "In your expert opinion, do you think that fact X means my client could not have committed the crime?" And if the prosecuting lawyer can't get the "expert" to adequately explain at the level they think the jury will understand, then they (the prosecution) are not doing their job properly. And same with the defence side. In the end it's all about opinion, and convincing the jury to your way of thinking - or at least not to the way the prosecution want you to be convinced.

I think some of the subject-specific laws that the various agencies legislated had been well served by judges that have some level of understanding (i.e. an FCC case would be overseen by an internal FCC judge), allowable under the "Chevron deference" where Congress effectively allocated to the agency the ability to judge cases within their remit. Unfortunately the Supreme Court have bulldozed straight through that in a fairly obvious power-grab for the judiciary. Right or wrong, who knows, but they have now effectively declared themselves (i.e. lower court judges) sufficiently expert in such subjects, rather than defer to the agencies. The Biden administration have obviously appealed, and I think the Supreme Court will soon hear that appeal.

I haven't seen that series you mention, but I somehow imagine that the most ridiculous examples of such taken from things like Ally McBeal, or Boston Legal, are probably not too far from reality! :)
 
You can't write this stuff, it's too good. The employees of a company in south western PA were told by the president of the company they wouldn't be getting their xmas bonus this year as the company had to purchase a great deal of stock before Trump puts his tariff plan into operation. The employees, all Trump supporters were furious, until the president explained how a tariff works. The idiot employees all thought the country exporting the products would pay the tariffs, just like Trump said they would. Beautiful!!
 
 
Things they are are a changing Demorats…
Big fat-ass Tish James best stay out of adult affairs :O
They’re not playing with you bubble-heads
 
Sarkus said:
But surely that won't happen with RFK Jr in charge of health! ;)
Click to expand...
I've got the VA. That can be iffy, Indianapolis VA used to HATE vets. Don't know if that's still the rule but institutionalized bad habits are hard to break. In St. Louis it's 180'd, they've kept me alive will past expectations.

Good luck to all of you, yer gonna need it.
 
Trek said:
Things they are are a changing Demorats…
...
They’re not playing with you bubble-heads
Click to expand...
Quite typically the first is a straw-man - Leticia James has not violated anyone's rights, nor ever sought to. She has sought to hold Trump accountable for fraudulent activity, however, as she has done with many other people in her jurisdiction.. And she succeeded - hence the hundreds of millions that Trump now owes as penalty. But otherwise it is simply scare-mongering by whoever the guy is, threatening James against doing something that she has never done, or wanted to.

The second is another fallacious argument (no surprise) equating his election victory with innocence.

The only disappointing thing here is that so many Americans seem to buy this crap. The only one threatening lawfare, let alone carrying it out, is the GOP, and Trump himself via his explicit desire for retribution. And all we really have in this thread at the moment is one or two stereotypical MAGA cult members simply spouting their rather moronic nonsense.
Yeah, the bigger crowd voted for Trump, but until you can remove your MAGA hat and actually converse sensibly, honestly, and not like the troll you're being, you're really just proving everyone else's view correct.
 
Sarkus said:
No, I don't think so. The "experts" should be good enough to explain, with the help of their side's lawyer, the relevant facts, their opinion, and their significance to the case, all at a level that the jury can understand and appreciate. E.g. "In your expert opinion, do you think that fact X means my client could not have committed the crime?" And if the prosecuting lawyer can't get the "expert" to adequately explain at the level they think the jury will understand, then they (the prosecution) are not doing their job properly. And same with the defence side. In the end it's all about opinion, and convincing the jury to your way of thinking - or at least not to the way the prosecution want you to be convinced.

I think some of the subject-specific laws that the various agencies legislated had been well served by judges that have some level of understanding (i.e. an FCC case would be overseen by an internal FCC judge), allowable under the "Chevron deference" where Congress effectively allocated to the agency the ability to judge cases within their remit. Unfortunately the Supreme Court have bulldozed straight through that in a fairly obvious power-grab for the judiciary. Right or wrong, who knows, but they have now effectively declared themselves (i.e. lower court judges) sufficiently expert in such subjects, rather than defer to the agencies. The Biden administration have obviously appealed, and I think the Supreme Court will soon hear that appeal.
Click to expand...
I don't think they ought necessarily be experts either; but I do wish there were better ways to ensure that a jury is both free of certain biases, as well fully capable of understanding slightly difficult matters. It's a bit like Trump's "I'm going to CHARGE MEXICO, CANADA AND CHINA TARIFFS!" If you successfully completed high school, you really ought to know that that's not how tariffs work. Moreover, if you completed high school and you're in the 80-odd percent in the 85-plus (IQ, that is) group, it ought to be apparent that Trump really is not a terribly bright guy, never. mind everything else about him. Stuff like that is hard to process.

Incidentally, the uh, "nature" of Americans generally and the fact that sexual assault cases--and 30 year old ones, especially--are already notoriously difficult to argue successfully (and even more so in criminal court), makes the E Jean Carroll rulings especially fascinating and convincing. Bluntly: If you can convince a group of average Americans that a born-rich (whom Americans worship generally) white guy raped a woman some 30 years ago, that suggests some pretty damn strong and compelling evidence. Don't recall the specifics in civil cases, but I'm not even sure whether Carroll's lawyers were allowed to introduce the fact that Trump has also very likely raped or assaulted at least two dozen other women as argument towards character.

Sarkus said:
I haven't seen that series you mention, but I somehow imagine that the most ridiculous examples of such taken from things like Ally McBeal, or Boston Legal, are probably not too far from reality! :)
Click to expand...
IN The Staircase, the prosecutors were a bit like the inverse of James Spader's character; that is, they engaged in dubiously legal activities for all the wrong reasons, instead of the right ones. I'm accounting for the director's sympathetic framing, of course, but a lot of these scenes were actual courtroom footage.
 
First of all, shame on me for posting this. Also, shame on me for even knowing about this. In my defense, I generally only do curated doomscrolling; that is to say, I rely upon others more masochistic than myself to find this crap. But this explains a lot.

Anyways. Enjoy!


You've only got to watch about a minute to get the gist, but here's a partial transcript for those disinclined:

Pookie: Question: are you guys considered the South or the middle South?

Hannah: South.

Hailey ("Hawk Tuah" girl): I say, "never eat..." uh, yeah? "Never eat soggy waffles."

(This part confused me, to put it mildly, but my read is that Hailey requires a mnemonic to recall directions and, apparently, to determine which part of the country she lives in?)
...

Pookie: Second of all: how do you guys feel about losing the war?

Hannah: What?

Pookie: The Civil War... to me.

Hailey: Oh, we lost a civil war to you?

Pookie: Yeah, you all took the L. Are you over it?

Hannah: We're a little uneducated.

Hailey: We don't know what you're talking about.

Pookie: There was a war with North--North versus South--and it's kind of crazy cuz you guys I feel like we're
better at fighting but somehow the North won.

Hailey: You're so educated...
 
parmalee said:
First of all, shame on me for posting this. Also, shame on me for even knowing about this. In my defense, I generally only do curated doomscrolling; that is to say, I rely upon others more masochistic than myself to find this crap. But this explains a lot.

Anyways. Enjoy!


You've only got to watch about a minute to get the gist, but here's a partial transcript for those disinclined:

Pookie: Question: are you guys considered the South or the middle South?

Hannah: South.

Hailey ("Hawk Tuah" girl): I say, "never eat..." uh, yeah? "Never eat soggy waffles."

(This part confused me, to put it mildly, but my read is that Hailey requires a mnemonic to recall directions and, apparently, to determine which part of the country she lives in?)
...

Pookie: Second of all: how do you guys feel about losing the war?

Hannah: What?

Pookie: The Civil War... to me.

Hailey: Oh, we lost a civil war to you?

Pookie: Yeah, you all took the L. Are you over it?

Hannah: We're a little uneducated.

Hailey: We don't know what you're talking about.

Pookie: There was a war with North--North versus South--and it's kind of crazy cuz you guys I feel like we're
better at fighting but somehow the North won.

Hailey: You're so educated...
Click to expand...
Painful as that was, you cannot claim all the idiots just because Trump got voted in. Seattle is not an idiot, his arguments got diluted by the the brainless interjections from Trek and the other one so he gave up. He should some back. Seattle
Second, those girls were hand picked for stupid, they are like Prom Queen dumb, won a competition or something.

Pre COVID I had a conversation with a working mother of two (all other info confidential )

Mum: My youngest was asking about WW1 and 2. From school

Me: Cool, they should teach them this stuff early.

Mum: He knew more than me.

Me: How!?

Mum: I don't know anything.

Me: You didn't learn any history at school? From your parents?

Mum: Can't remember.

Me: You must know something, WW1 1914-18? The Kaiser? The trenches? The Somme? Ypres? Gallipoli? Mustard gas? WW2 Dunkirk?Hitler? 1930s? Jews, concentration camps? Holocaust? Churchill? D day? Atom bomb?

Mum: (Shakes head.) I'm thick.

Me: No you're not, it's around you all the time, films, TV, Saving Private Ryan!?..

It occurred to me that regardless of capabilities, some people are not that interested in the world around them, just bills, school run, getting to work on time, save for the holidays.
 
Pinball1970 said:
Painful as that was, you cannot claim all the idiots just because Trump got voted in. Seattle is not an idiot, his arguments got diluted by the the brainless interjections from Trek and the other one so he gave up. He should some back. Seattle
Second, those girls were hand picked for stupid, they are like Prom Queen dumb, won a competition or something.

Pre COVID I had a conversation with a working mother of two (all other info confidential )

Mum: My youngest was asking about WW1 and 2. From school

Me: Cool, they should teach them this stuff early.

Mum: He knew more than me.

Me: How!?

Mum: I don't know anything.

Me: You didn't learn any history at school? From your parents?

Mum: Can't remember.

Me: You must know something, WW1 1914-18? The Kaiser? The trenches? The Somme? Ypres? Gallipoli? Mustard gas? WW2 Dunkirk?Hitler? 1930s? Jews, concentration camps? Holocaust? Churchill? D day? Atom bomb?

Mum: (Shakes head.) I'm thick.

Me: No you're not, it's around you all the time, films, TV, Saving Private Ryan!?..

It occurred to me that regardless of capabilities, some people are not that interested in the world around them, just bills, school run, getting to work on time, save for the holidays.
Click to expand...
I met a local girl on a potential date. She mentioned that she was Jewish but said it was not so much in the religious sense but culturally she identified that way. She then proceeded to fit the proto type of a Jewish stereotype.

"My Uncle Saul, in LA, has the biggest and best dry cleaner service in LA, my other Uncle David has the largest auto dealership in Orange County."

I said that I didn't know a lot about Jewish culture but knew a little about modern Jewish history at least and mentioned the Six Day War in 1967 or the "Jewish/Arab War". She hadn't heard of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top