Five minutes of hate news

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
And this is another example why DAs need oversight that can override their decision not to prosecute
But who's supposed to watch over them? They are ultimately elected officials (usually), and any sort of oversight committee would need to be run by other people, who could be just as bad. And the justice system needs the DA's able to use discretion in who they prosecute, because otherwise it would be much worse in the other direction as the US overcriminalizes, and there's just not enough time in the day to prosecute everything. I don't think there's a solution other than don't elect bad people.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
118546618_1284979625175143_1014683304259446458_n.md.jpg


Gaze upon the future of the chattel slavery of our brave new world.
I want off this planet.

Is this why that BNW tv show was made? To accommodate people to soma and orgy porgy?
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
But who's supposed to watch over them? They are ultimately elected officials (usually), and any sort of oversight committee would need to be run by other people, who could be just as bad. And the justice system needs the DA's able to use discretion in who they prosecute, because otherwise it would be much worse in the other direction as the US overcriminalizes, and there's just not enough time in the day to prosecute everything. I don't think there's a solution other than don't elect bad people.
The trial jury. Just give the jury the option of saying "Not only is this guy innocent, it is wrongful to even to even try to prosecute him." Have this level of innocence make the Prosecutor personally liable for all of the accused court and lawyer fees, and explicitely revoke all forms of imunity has for actions taken during the investigation and charging except for Statutes of limitations and presidential pardons.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
The trial jury. Just give the jury the option of saying "Not only is this guy innocent, it is wrongful to even to even try to prosecute him." Have this level of innocence make the Prosecutor personally liable for all of the accused court and lawyer fees, and explicitely revoke all forms of imunity has for actions taken during the investigation and charging except for Statutes of limitations and presidential pardons.
Technically the Jury already has the right to do this*, it's called Jury Nullification. Letting the prosecutor, judge, or anybody else know you're aware it's possible is the fastest way to get eliminated from jury duty, the legal system hates it when jurors throw their weight around.

*Except for making the prosecutor pay for the trial of course.
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
Technically the Jury already has the right to do this*, it's called Jury Nullification. Letting the prosecutor, judge, or anybody else know you're aware it's possible is the fastest way to get eliminated from jury duty, the legal system hates it when jurors throw their weight around.
No, jury nullification is something else entirely, and it isn't explicitly part of the law either. Jury nullification is the Jury ignoring the law and finding the accused innocent.

What I am talking about is the jury finding that not only is the accused innocent, but also that the accusation is so absurd that the only reason to bring the case to court is malice.

One is "He is innocent because the law is stupid" the other is "He is so innocent that the prosecutor needs a spanking for bothering him with this."

However I would like Jury nullification to be explicitely part of the law, so you could actually tell/ask the jury for it without the judge punishing you. That and have repeated jury nullifications repeal a law, or at least send it back to the senate for review.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
The trial jury. Just give the jury the option of saying "Not only is this guy innocent, it is wrongful to even to even try to prosecute him." Have this level of innocence make the Prosecutor personally liable for all of the accused court and lawyer fees, and explicitely revoke all forms of imunity has for actions taken during the investigation and charging except for Statutes of limitations and presidential pardons.
This is an interesting idea. The only problems I really see with it is that a) this only solves overprosecution, not underprosecution, b) juries are usually shielded from seeing corrupt acts of the prosecution by good defense lawyers, who get the evidence tossed from the beginning (for example, a confession given under torture would stopped from ever being even referred to by a good defense lawyer, because a juror might think that even if there was torture, the guy did confess), and c) fear of prosecuting popular defendants.

There is some level of threatening disbarment, but that's never enforced except against the worst of the worst.
 

ATP

Well-known member
It's not just USA though, many European cities used post WWII rebuildings as excuse to get rid of their oldtowns and make themselves more car friendly.


Nothing new.For example, one of oldest polish cities is Kraków,founded before 890AD.But first relativelly unchanged building are from 15th century,becouse cities was rebulided as they grown in new styles.
Only polish not changed church from 12th century survived,becouse city was destroyed and replaced by village which had no money for new church.
 

Chaos Marine

Well-known member
Nf73Tix.jpg


Ah that's great, grooming gangs who specifically target specifically white girls for prostitution and sex trafficking cannot be mocked. I wonder if in a few months there'll be news articles about people being arrested for saying paedophiles should be hung or that they're subhuman?

wrBJOJE.jpg


Oof.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top