3 ms·

Indeed. "Egregious" in the court of public opinion isn't the same thing as a legal case put together rigorously by prosecutors arguing against the finest defens

Indeed. "Egregious" in the court of public opinion isn't the same thing as a legal case put together rigorously by prosecutors arguing against the finest defense lawyers that scammers' money can buy.

dheera 3y ago
Here's a rebel idea: In court cases, have the scoreboard weighted by the AGI of the lawyers. define pro = accuser, con = accused If the "pro" side has 10 points and the "con" side has 5 points, and the con side's lawyer makes 1/3 the salary of the pro side's lawyer, the con side wins the case. Another rebel idea: If either side chooses to not use lawyers, the other side is also not allowed to use lawyers. If either side uses ChatGPT in the courtroom, the other side is also allowed to use ChatGPT. Yet another rebel idea: The lawyer budgets of both sides must be equal. If you have more money to spend on lawyers you are required by law to give some money to the other side for their lawyers to make the budgets equal.
- LeifCarrotson 3y ago
  Adjusted gross income? Also, what are "points"? There's no scoreboard in a courtroom...
  - dheera 3y ago
    > There's no scoreboard in a courtroom There could be ... in terms of form it's not that different from a glorified high school debate with some silly outfits and exccessive use of SAT vocabulary.
    - thecyborganizer 3y ago
      Your high school debates were judged by a jury of your peers? We had a bored teacher on their day off. (Or sometimes a parent, or an alumni.)
- ohdannyboy 3y ago
  Let's say I have something like $1M to my name (total assets) and I'm accused of a serious crime. I'm ready to spend it all to not go to prison for decades, but the AGI of the prosecutor is like 1/3 of my respectable private attorney. State prosecutors make garbage so this isn't far fetched. I now have to fund the government and give a significant percent of my assets just to defend myself? Making somebody fund their own prosecution during trial is probably the least rebel thing I've ever heard.
  - dheera 3y ago
    > I'm ready to spend it all to not go to prison You said you were ready > give a significant percent of my assets just to defend myself So why not? Or get a cheaper lawyer yourself that's more fair to the other side. There's a lot of rich people out there who get away with some really bad crimes just because they have really clever private attorneys.
    - ohdannyboy 3y ago
      > So why not? Or get a cheaper lawyer yourself that's more fair to the other side. Because that is money I could and should be able to use to defend myself. And should my defense be successful that's my retirement money and financial security. I don't care about fair for the government, they accused me of something I didn't do. There is a 0% chance that a states attorneys salary will get me a private attorney of the same caliber. That's just not how it works. > There's a lot of rich people out there who get away with some really bad crimes just because they have really clever private attorneys. So what? Why should my ability to defend myself be compromised because someone with more money could afford a better lawyer? The presumption of innocence is one of the fundamental building blocks of our justice system. Prosecuting someone and making them fund their prosecution is a terrible idea, not a "rebel" one. The government already holds most of the cards here, this idea only cripples middle class and lower-end rich folks while not doing anything against the billionaires.
      - jancsika 3y ago
        I think blank slate HN'ers who want to cleverly build from first principles are in a sense like the problem C++ of trying to import the banana class and accidentally bringing in the entire world. But with the blank slaters it's more like, "let's solve brown bananas by making them out of titanium." And somehow you are left to import some unspecified number of classes for them until they finally posit that even bringing in the entire world won't fix the bug in their code.

Indeed. "Egregious" in the court of public opinion isn't the same thing as a legal case put together rigorously by prosecutors arguing against the finest defense lawyers that scammers' money can buy.

dheera 3y ago

Here's a rebel idea: In court cases, have the scoreboard weighted by the AGI of the lawyers. define pro = accuser, con = accused If the "pro" side has 10 points and the "con" side has 5 points, and the con side's lawyer makes 1/3 the salary of the pro side's lawyer, the con side wins the case. Another rebel idea: If either side chooses to not use lawyers, the other side is also not allowed to use lawyers. If either side uses ChatGPT in the courtroom, the other side is also allowed to use ChatGPT. Yet another rebel idea: The lawyer budgets of both sides must be equal. If you have more money to spend on lawyers you are required by law to give some money to the other side for their lawyers to make the budgets equal.

LeifCarrotson 3y ago
Adjusted gross income? Also, what are "points"? There's no scoreboard in a courtroom...
- dheera 3y ago
  > There's no scoreboard in a courtroom There could be ... in terms of form it's not that different from a glorified high school debate with some silly outfits and exccessive use of SAT vocabulary.
  - thecyborganizer 3y ago
    Your high school debates were judged by a jury of your peers? We had a bored teacher on their day off. (Or sometimes a parent, or an alumni.)
ohdannyboy 3y ago
Let's say I have something like $1M to my name (total assets) and I'm accused of a serious crime. I'm ready to spend it all to not go to prison for decades, but the AGI of the prosecutor is like 1/3 of my respectable private attorney. State prosecutors make garbage so this isn't far fetched. I now have to fund the government and give a significant percent of my assets just to defend myself? Making somebody fund their own prosecution during trial is probably the least rebel thing I've ever heard.
- dheera 3y ago
  > I'm ready to spend it all to not go to prison You said you were ready > give a significant percent of my assets just to defend myself So why not? Or get a cheaper lawyer yourself that's more fair to the other side. There's a lot of rich people out there who get away with some really bad crimes just because they have really clever private attorneys.
  - ohdannyboy 3y ago
    > So why not? Or get a cheaper lawyer yourself that's more fair to the other side. Because that is money I could and should be able to use to defend myself. And should my defense be successful that's my retirement money and financial security. I don't care about fair for the government, they accused me of something I didn't do. There is a 0% chance that a states attorneys salary will get me a private attorney of the same caliber. That's just not how it works. > There's a lot of rich people out there who get away with some really bad crimes just because they have really clever private attorneys. So what? Why should my ability to defend myself be compromised because someone with more money could afford a better lawyer? The presumption of innocence is one of the fundamental building blocks of our justice system. Prosecuting someone and making them fund their prosecution is a terrible idea, not a "rebel" one. The government already holds most of the cards here, this idea only cripples middle class and lower-end rich folks while not doing anything against the billionaires.
    - jancsika 3y ago
      I think blank slate HN'ers who want to cleverly build from first principles are in a sense like the problem C++ of trying to import the banana class and accidentally bringing in the entire world. But with the blank slaters it's more like, "let's solve brown bananas by making them out of titanium." And somehow you are left to import some unspecified number of classes for them until they finally posit that even bringing in the entire world won't fix the bug in their code.