3 ms·

Jury trials have been postponed all over the country. And we can't go 2 years without jury trials while waiting for a vaccine. We'll have to find less restrict

Jury trials have been postponed all over the country. And we can't go 2 years without jury trials while waiting for a vaccine. We'll have to find less restrictive ways to coexist with this virus.

tptacek 7y ago
Trials are postponed when they can be. Hearings are being conducted remotely. Courts are open where they have to be. Habeas has not been suspended. Churches are an especially unpersuasive example of overreach, since several churches have been implicated in super-spreader events.
- leereeves 7y ago
  "When they can be" is a strange way to refer to a universal shutdown of all jury trials in many jurisdictions, such as: https://www.ktvu.com/news/justice-delayed-california-courts-cancel-postpone-hearings https://www.ktvu.com/news/justice-delayed-california-courts-... What was perhaps acceptable as a temporary emergency measure is not acceptable as the new normal. The current measures are overly restrictive and cannot continue for two years. And while I don't care about religion myself, I understand that religious people feel the same way about closing all churches for years. We'll also have to find less restrictive ways to control the virus while allowing the churches to reopen.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    I'm not sure why you'd expect me to respond to (let alone defend) an argument that nobody is making. Clearly things will not continue exactly as they have been for two years. If the same protective needs exist 2 years from now, the courts will have adapted. The churches, for whatever it's worth to you, already have. Regarding the courts: Ken White is a good source for what's actually happening.
    - leereeves 7y ago
      My point is coronavirus will still be here in six months or two years. So if we agree that less restrictive measures will be in place in the future, I would ask why such measures aren't also sufficient today? I would argue that, given that this lockdown must end before we eliminate the virus, we should begin adapting and testing less restrictive measures as quickly as possible.
      - tptacek 7y ago
        Your argument is specious. I said that the measures in place 2 years from now won't be the same as the ones we have now, not that things will simply be "less restrictive". Maybe they will be, maybe they won't. The reason they aren't different now is that it takes time to adapt. The reason we don't simply reduce restrictions right now is that doing so will kill people.
        leereeves 7y ago
        Not relaxing restrictions will also kill people from increased domestic violence, from depression and suicide due to business failure, unemployment, homelessness, etc, and from poor health due to inactivity. It's always a tradeoff. And now we're seeing data showing that the virus is more widespread and less dangerous than previously believed, so it's time to reevaluate that trade.
        tptacek 7y ago
        Decisions are being made in light of the data. We'll know more in May than we did in March. As they say: in the best case, if we execute perfectly, it'll look like we never should have done anything. Your lips to God's ears! Meanwhile, the discussion here is about the Constitutionality of lockdown orders. From what I can tell, there's no serious argument about the lawfulness of orders that have actually occurred; the "debate", such as it is, is about hypothetical future orders that don't appear to be on the table anywhere.
        7y ago

Jury trials have been postponed all over the country. And we can't go 2 years without jury trials while waiting for a vaccine. We'll have to find less restrictive ways to coexist with this virus.

tptacek 7y ago

Trials are postponed when they can be. Hearings are being conducted remotely. Courts are open where they have to be. Habeas has not been suspended. Churches are an especially unpersuasive example of overreach, since several churches have been implicated in super-spreader events.

leereeves 7y ago
"When they can be" is a strange way to refer to a universal shutdown of all jury trials in many jurisdictions, such as: https://www.ktvu.com/news/justice-delayed-california-courts-cancel-postpone-hearings https://www.ktvu.com/news/justice-delayed-california-courts-... What was perhaps acceptable as a temporary emergency measure is not acceptable as the new normal. The current measures are overly restrictive and cannot continue for two years. And while I don't care about religion myself, I understand that religious people feel the same way about closing all churches for years. We'll also have to find less restrictive ways to control the virus while allowing the churches to reopen.
- tptacek 7y ago
  I'm not sure why you'd expect me to respond to (let alone defend) an argument that nobody is making. Clearly things will not continue exactly as they have been for two years. If the same protective needs exist 2 years from now, the courts will have adapted. The churches, for whatever it's worth to you, already have. Regarding the courts: Ken White is a good source for what's actually happening.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    My point is coronavirus will still be here in six months or two years. So if we agree that less restrictive measures will be in place in the future, I would ask why such measures aren't also sufficient today? I would argue that, given that this lockdown must end before we eliminate the virus, we should begin adapting and testing less restrictive measures as quickly as possible.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      Your argument is specious. I said that the measures in place 2 years from now won't be the same as the ones we have now, not that things will simply be "less restrictive". Maybe they will be, maybe they won't. The reason they aren't different now is that it takes time to adapt. The reason we don't simply reduce restrictions right now is that doing so will kill people.
      - leereeves 7y ago
        Not relaxing restrictions will also kill people from increased domestic violence, from depression and suicide due to business failure, unemployment, homelessness, etc, and from poor health due to inactivity. It's always a tradeoff. And now we're seeing data showing that the virus is more widespread and less dangerous than previously believed, so it's time to reevaluate that trade.
        tptacek 7y ago
        Decisions are being made in light of the data. We'll know more in May than we did in March. As they say: in the best case, if we execute perfectly, it'll look like we never should have done anything. Your lips to God's ears! Meanwhile, the discussion here is about the Constitutionality of lockdown orders. From what I can tell, there's no serious argument about the lawfulness of orders that have actually occurred; the "debate", such as it is, is about hypothetical future orders that don't appear to be on the table anywhere.
        7y ago