News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I tend to agree, but there is maybe a little nuance here (archived)
Ultimately, if you ever find yourself in a position where you are concluding that voting to convict an innocent person of a crime is the best way forward you made a mistake in your reasoning somewhere and you need to go back to step one, but I can appreciate thinking that you have to do what you can to work around corrupt systems. Like, highly educated and professional defense attorneys tell clients who say they're innocent to plead guilty for a lesser sentence all the time, it's no wonder jurors get the same ideas.
Her job was not to bargain for this man - that is his lawyer's job. Her job was too make a finding of innocent or guilty and she knowingly convicted a man she thought was innocent. His blood is on her hands.
THIS is why so many innocent people plead guilty to lesser crimes rather than leave their fate in the hands of 12 idiots.
She wanted to send a message by voting third party and now has regrets.
I would say she voted for what she believed to be a lesser evil instead of voting her conscience, But jury decisions are quite different from electoral decisions so I'm not sure how much utility the underlying analogy has
Her conscience would have been the lesser evil. She was playing 27-D chess instead of her fucking job. She's a moron who sent an innocent man to prison at the best.
Her conscience wouldn't have been evil at all imo, she wanted to vote for his innocence but was persuaded that the next best thing was all she could do
imo
It was like 1-D chess, not 27: "if he has a mistrial, the next jury will convict him."
That's it, that was her thinking.
She fucked up real bad. 🤷♂️ Good on her for trying to correct it, but the right thing to do was vote not guilty because you didn't think he was proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Oh and by the way, make sure everyone is aware of jury nullification: until the wealthy follow the rule of law, you should feel free to vote not guilty even if you think they're guilty.
I know I will be thinking about that the next time I'm on a jury.
That's my point. He would likely be free if she voted her conscience. Even the best outcome from her idiocy was him spending life in prison. She should feel bad either way.
As I said - this is exactly why innocent people will choose a lighter sentence and plead guilty. You never know what some idiot in the jury is going to do.
Holy fuck that's hilarious! 🤣
The real travesty is that a death penalty is still a possibility in any society.
Were that not a plausible outcome, these jurors wouldn't have had to wrestle with the moral dilemma of having their actions potentially lead to the death of another human.
I was once in a pool of jurors set to hear the penalty phase of a capital murder. I would never had been seated in a thousand years and it ended up in a deal anyway. But the Judge told us that if we chose the death penalty every juror has to sign the death warrant.
The though of my signature on a document like that still sends chills down my spine.