5 ms·

>How? If you make the offense definition broad on the assumption that not every instance will be prosecuted, then you take the power of conviction from the jur

>How? If you make the offense definition broad on the assumption that not every instance will be prosecuted, then you take the power of conviction from the jury and hand it to the state prosecutor. If the state prosecutor elects to prosecute, the conviction is guaranteed because the law is not specific. It varies nation by nation as to whether a jury is allowed to directly ignore the letter of the law when passing a judgment, but even in nations where it is not, jury nullification is uncommon. Thus, the conviction rests on the prosecutors decision to move ahead or not, not on the judgment of a jury of the defendants peers. >I imagine most cases of assault in the middle ages were not brought to trial either. Fuck me dead buddy, I hope you're not seriously attempting to use the middle ages as an example of how a justice system ought to be? >But, if something does go to trial, it's still up to the jury to decide. In Canada, it is considered the duty of the presiding justice to attempt to prevent the jury from performing jury nullification[1]. So yes, it's up to the jury, but the jury is under pressure from the justice to not consider the ramifications of this system you seem to like so much too deeply. Since we all know very well that humans are easily manipulated by perceived authority to harm their peers[2], I stand by my statement: that sounds like a terrifying way to write laws. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#Canada [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

graeme 9y ago
You're reading the least charitable interpretation of what I said. I meant that what's true of assault now has been true the entire history of the English judicial system - that's why the sentence preceding the one you quoted said the system has been like this since time immemorial. So it's not a new law. Can you point to a time in the past when common assault was treated differently? I think it's something intrinsic to the offense itself. This has nothing to do with jury nullification. That's a situation where conviction is certain, unless the jury finds the law unjust. Assault is far more likely to be a situation where there is reasonable doubt and no conviction, because of the lack of evidence typically associated with the offence. In short, I think you're believing me to be saying something quite different than I am.
- Sir_Substance 9y ago
  >In short, I think you're believing me to be saying something quite different than I am. It's possible that you /meant/ something different, but everyone can read what you said. What you say matters my friend. >This has nothing to do with jury nullification. That's a situation where conviction is certain, unless the jury finds the law unjust. Nonsense, jury nullification is inherently intertwined with this topic, because if we're writing laws that may be unjust in order to ensure that they cast as wide a potential prosecutorial net as possible, the only defense that the citizenry has against a corrupt bureaucracy is consistent defiance via jury nullification. The problem is, consistency is incredibly hard to achieve across a whole population, which is why we should not be writing laws that can be abused by the corrupt.
dang 9y ago
> Fuck me dead buddy, I hope you're not You've broken the HN guideline that asks: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take them to heart. We need that in order to preserve the container for discussion here, which is under constant pressure.
- graeme 9y ago
  Thanks :) I appreciate the work you do here.
  - Sir_Substance 9y ago
    As usual, dang helicopters into a conversation, snipes out the least relevant part of it, makes a fuss and leaves. He has executive power by dint of the admin controls, but for the health of community driven sites it's important to ignore people like him, or no discussion can be had. Your opinion and words still stand visible, I'm afraid.

graeme 9y ago

You're reading the least charitable interpretation of what I said. I meant that what's true of assault now has been true the entire history of the English judicial system - that's why the sentence preceding the one you quoted said the system has been like this since time immemorial. So it's not a new law. Can you point to a time in the past when common assault was treated differently? I think it's something intrinsic to the offense itself. This has nothing to do with jury nullification. That's a situation where conviction is certain, unless the jury finds the law unjust. Assault is far more likely to be a situation where there is reasonable doubt and no conviction, because of the lack of evidence typically associated with the offence. In short, I think you're believing me to be saying something quite different than I am.

Sir_Substance 9y ago
>In short, I think you're believing me to be saying something quite different than I am. It's possible that you /meant/ something different, but everyone can read what you said. What you say matters my friend. >This has nothing to do with jury nullification. That's a situation where conviction is certain, unless the jury finds the law unjust. Nonsense, jury nullification is inherently intertwined with this topic, because if we're writing laws that may be unjust in order to ensure that they cast as wide a potential prosecutorial net as possible, the only defense that the citizenry has against a corrupt bureaucracy is consistent defiance via jury nullification. The problem is, consistency is incredibly hard to achieve across a whole population, which is why we should not be writing laws that can be abused by the corrupt.

dang 9y ago

> Fuck me dead buddy, I hope you're not You've broken the HN guideline that asks: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take them to heart. We need that in order to preserve the container for discussion here, which is under constant pressure.

graeme 9y ago
Thanks :) I appreciate the work you do here.
- Sir_Substance 9y ago
  As usual, dang helicopters into a conversation, snipes out the least relevant part of it, makes a fuss and leaves. He has executive power by dint of the admin controls, but for the health of community driven sites it's important to ignore people like him, or no discussion can be had. Your opinion and words still stand visible, I'm afraid.