4 ms·
The way this article frames the titular juror really rubs me the wrong way. As if her forgetting about her negligence, then finally going back to do the right
by devmor 3y ago
The way this article frames the titular juror really rubs me the wrong way.
As if her forgetting about her negligence, then finally going back to do the right thing was heroic.
It was better than nothing, but a lot worse than what she should have done to begin with.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- renewiltord 3y agoWell, 11 others did all the wrong things and didn't do the one right thing. In general, I think people like to reward this thing to allow people to know that if they fucked up, forgiveness is forthcoming if they try to right the wrong. Overall, that's my view. I try to reward what I want to see more of. And there's sufficient suffering and shame from knowing you put someone innocent away that I think I'm fine with promoting anyone who fights that. It really sucks that she fucked it up the first time, going along with other more strident people. But good on her for what she did.
- devmor 3y agoOh don’t get me wrong, I’m not admonishing her for eventually doing the right thing. I’m glad her conscience took hold and that poor man could live out his twilight years in peace. It’s the author of the article I’m more bothered by. I’ve seen less heaped on praise and weepiness for people who died stopping mass shooters.