4 ms·

If we didn't need a reason to shut down all data brokers and outright ban the sale of data before, this is certainly a good enough reason to do it now. Also, i

If we didn't need a reason to shut down all data brokers and outright ban the sale of data before, this is certainly a good enough reason to do it now. Also, if I'm ever called to jury duty on a trial where a woman is accused of seeking an "illegal" abortion or a medical professional is accused of providing such services "illegally", I will always vote to acquit. Jury nullification is not only your right, but your duty in the face of tyranny.

Akronymus 4y ago
> I will always vote to acquit. Ironically enough, that very sentiment would disqualify you from serving jury duty on such a case.
- namlem 4y ago
  Not if you just lie about your biases during the selection process. Never tip your hand that you were biased from the beginning, otherwise they can get you for perjury.
- mywittyname 4y ago
  This is why you say that you're able and willing to be impartial. Then you hear the facts of the case and give your honest verdict. But, this attitude also highlights the potential issue with attempting to try anyone in these situations. If prosecutors have a 0% success rate because they can't effectively voir dire a jury for these cases, why would they continue to try them? It's hard enough to find juries for cases that are not politically charged.
- mikece 4y ago
  Only if you state it out loud. There is a separate legal question as to whether mental reservation is a violation to swearing to tell the whole truth... I expect it's a question any competent attorney would ask at the voir dire stage of trial.
prionassembly 4y ago
I'm philosophically pro-life but agree with your general stance. This is a "wrong" opinion, but I think laws should reflect our best standards for society and then we should be very casuistic and lenient when thinking about specific cases. I know this can have horrible consequences (uneven application of the law leading to grounds for persecution), but it feels like the right trade-off for me. I think I'd be okay if a vast majority of abortion trials were nullified by juries. I think killing unborn humans is a serious matter (not as serious, however, as killing an adult one -- as I said, I feel everything's very contextual), but by that point everyone has given it serious thought -- a woman, a prosecutor, twelve jurors. I have an uneasy personal stance that abortions past, say, neurulation, should be very hard (with the usual exceptions for rape and endangered life of the mother) but that burning women who try to kill their babies at the stake is way too much. I feel like the previous standard on abortions made them frivolous and was paving the way to widespread late-term abortion, which is horrific (I spent time in the NICU and saw many second-trimester babies fighting for their lives). The conscience of twelve jurors might just be where the buck stops (or doesn't).
- EddieDante 4y ago
  I'm also pro-life, but I have enough trouble being the captain of my own soul without aspiring to the admiralty of others'. Since I don't approve of abortion, I won't have one. Since I don't even have a uterus, it's not really a big deal for me, but since I still low-key resent having been circumcised as an infant because it should have been my decision for my body, I can see why women wouldn't want to be told whether or not they should have abortions. It's their bodies and their lives, and it ought to be their decision alone. Furthermore, Christianity is not the only religion. Nor does it have a monopoly on truth. Judaism, for example, seems to prioritize the mother's life over that of the unborn child; is that wrong? > I know this can have horrible consequences (uneven application of the law leading to grounds for persecution), but it feels like the right trade-off for me. Really? You think that being arrested, being indicted, and having to stand trial for an (admittedly distasteful) medical procedure that had previously been legal across the USA for almost fifty years is a good trade-off? You think it's OK to criminalize women for having had miscarriages, too? The stigma of having been accused of a crime doesn't go away, even if the charges are thrown out before trial or you go to trial and are acquitted. Why do you think some people call a certain SCOTUS judge "Brock" Kavanaugh instead of "Brett"? Do you honestly think it's acceptable to put any woman through that kind of ordeal? > by that point everyone has given it serious thought -- a woman, a prosecutor, twelve jurors The only people who should be giving this serious thought are the woman and her physician. The prosecutor should have more pressing concerns, like murder, rape, and wage theft -- and as somebody eligible for jury duty because I was stupid enough to register to vote I would resent being called upon to judge a woman accused of getting a medical procedure that had been legal across the USA for most of my life. > I feel like the previous standard on abortions made them frivolous and was paving the way to widespread late-term abortion, which is horrific (I spent time in the NICU and saw many second-trimester babies fighting for their lives) I was a second-trimester baby. I turned out mostly OK, but nobody should have go to through that kind of struggle. Don't use me or people like me to justify your moral stance. Other people don't exist for your sake.
namlem 4y ago
Remember that they ask you about biases during jury selection, and lying counts as perjury. So make sure to never reveal that you were biased from the outset.
tablespoon 4y ago
> If we didn't need a reason to shut down all data brokers and outright ban the sale of data before, this is certainly a good enough reason to do it now. They're not going to do that. Any changes will be narrowly targeted to the political issue at hand. That's why your video rental history has more privacy protections that a whole lot of other stuff you probably care a lot more about.

Akronymus 4y ago

> I will always vote to acquit. Ironically enough, that very sentiment would disqualify you from serving jury duty on such a case.

namlem 4y ago
Not if you just lie about your biases during the selection process. Never tip your hand that you were biased from the beginning, otherwise they can get you for perjury.
mywittyname 4y ago
This is why you say that you're able and willing to be impartial. Then you hear the facts of the case and give your honest verdict. But, this attitude also highlights the potential issue with attempting to try anyone in these situations. If prosecutors have a 0% success rate because they can't effectively voir dire a jury for these cases, why would they continue to try them? It's hard enough to find juries for cases that are not politically charged.
mikece 4y ago
Only if you state it out loud. There is a separate legal question as to whether mental reservation is a violation to swearing to tell the whole truth... I expect it's a question any competent attorney would ask at the voir dire stage of trial.

prionassembly 4y ago

I'm philosophically pro-life but agree with your general stance. This is a "wrong" opinion, but I think laws should reflect our best standards for society and then we should be very casuistic and lenient when thinking about specific cases. I know this can have horrible consequences (uneven application of the law leading to grounds for persecution), but it feels like the right trade-off for me. I think I'd be okay if a vast majority of abortion trials were nullified by juries. I think killing unborn humans is a serious matter (not as serious, however, as killing an adult one -- as I said, I feel everything's very contextual), but by that point everyone has given it serious thought -- a woman, a prosecutor, twelve jurors. I have an uneasy personal stance that abortions past, say, neurulation, should be very hard (with the usual exceptions for rape and endangered life of the mother) but that burning women who try to kill their babies at the stake is way too much. I feel like the previous standard on abortions made them frivolous and was paving the way to widespread late-term abortion, which is horrific (I spent time in the NICU and saw many second-trimester babies fighting for their lives). The conscience of twelve jurors might just be where the buck stops (or doesn't).

EddieDante 4y ago
I'm also pro-life, but I have enough trouble being the captain of my own soul without aspiring to the admiralty of others'. Since I don't approve of abortion, I won't have one. Since I don't even have a uterus, it's not really a big deal for me, but since I still low-key resent having been circumcised as an infant because it should have been my decision for my body, I can see why women wouldn't want to be told whether or not they should have abortions. It's their bodies and their lives, and it ought to be their decision alone. Furthermore, Christianity is not the only religion. Nor does it have a monopoly on truth. Judaism, for example, seems to prioritize the mother's life over that of the unborn child; is that wrong? > I know this can have horrible consequences (uneven application of the law leading to grounds for persecution), but it feels like the right trade-off for me. Really? You think that being arrested, being indicted, and having to stand trial for an (admittedly distasteful) medical procedure that had previously been legal across the USA for almost fifty years is a good trade-off? You think it's OK to criminalize women for having had miscarriages, too? The stigma of having been accused of a crime doesn't go away, even if the charges are thrown out before trial or you go to trial and are acquitted. Why do you think some people call a certain SCOTUS judge "Brock" Kavanaugh instead of "Brett"? Do you honestly think it's acceptable to put any woman through that kind of ordeal? > by that point everyone has given it serious thought -- a woman, a prosecutor, twelve jurors The only people who should be giving this serious thought are the woman and her physician. The prosecutor should have more pressing concerns, like murder, rape, and wage theft -- and as somebody eligible for jury duty because I was stupid enough to register to vote I would resent being called upon to judge a woman accused of getting a medical procedure that had been legal across the USA for most of my life. > I feel like the previous standard on abortions made them frivolous and was paving the way to widespread late-term abortion, which is horrific (I spent time in the NICU and saw many second-trimester babies fighting for their lives) I was a second-trimester baby. I turned out mostly OK, but nobody should have go to through that kind of struggle. Don't use me or people like me to justify your moral stance. Other people don't exist for your sake.

namlem 4y ago

Remember that they ask you about biases during jury selection, and lying counts as perjury. So make sure to never reveal that you were biased from the outset.

tablespoon 4y ago

> If we didn't need a reason to shut down all data brokers and outright ban the sale of data before, this is certainly a good enough reason to do it now. They're not going to do that. Any changes will be narrowly targeted to the political issue at hand. That's why your video rental history has more privacy protections that a whole lot of other stuff you probably care a lot more about.