Uplifting News
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews, a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
view the rest of the comments
Its because you dont build systems. Random selection is a corner stone of building systems that are reliable and resilient to bad actors in positions of authority or trying to abuse systematic weaknesses.
You dismiss vibes but the whole concept of vibes is when people as a group that a situation is good/bad. Its an incredibly useful barometer for legal matters.
Your adherence to 'laws' is hilarious once you consider who is currently writing the laws. Laws are not some moral guidepost, they're a set of rules put down by those in power which often means they benefit those same individuals and not necessarily that the laws are actually good.
Sending a parent of 3 to jail for weed is hilariously stupid. But we literally did that for two generations. And we still do it for things like shrooms
Can it result in bad outcomes? Absolutely. But it can also correct grave injustice.
Edit: fun fact i use 'vibes' when designing defense systems for software environments.
I actually design the system to pool clients into randomly distributed groups and use that to winnow badly acting connections without impeding the majority of connections or having to individually track each connections behavior.
The 'vibe' is the pooled behavior of many connections that ends up getting restricted and shuffled so at each tier you narrow on the bad actors while releasing the good actors back into the general pop. Some connections get punished unjustily but its often short periods with quick resolutions.
You can think of a jury as that judgement of that pool of potential bad actors:
Nullification is the ability to prevent a corrupt/captured legislature from having laws applied in a manner that is functionally a bad idea/improper.
But make no mistake each one of those agents in the system need to be checked and thats the role of a jury.
You're correct in that the jury prevents a corrupt government from convicting innocent people.
That's why a jury's role is to return a verdict of guilty or not guilty. You will note there's no third option for a jury to return a verdict of "guilty but exempt".
Do you really want a court system where 12 idiots decide whether the law should apply? That's the antithesis of a fair and just legal system.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
If you actually read the wiki page, you will find it supports everything I've said.
it covers everything you've said. it doesn't support it. those are two very different things. It also covers a fair amount of the position people like myself hold.
Yes. and fun fact we already do, the only way for us to not have it is to do away with juries of ones peers entirely. shrug as I said having random people in the process inoculates it from a ton of problems. move long now. you're:
Juries decide whether defendants are guilty of the charges against them. They do not decide whether the law ought to apply. If you don't understand the difference then you're right... I'm not going to be able to put an argument before you that you'll be able to comprehend.
It's patently obvious to everyone that a fair and just system of laws needs to apply equally to everyone, even in cases where we dislike the victim.
Who said anything about not applying the laws equally? (fun fact: there is a difference between equal and fair; I believe laws should be applied fairly not equally) if a law is unjust or does has mitigating circumstances (brian thompson decisions resulting is untold amounts of pain/suffering/death for millions of individuals) you 'equally' refuse to allow the punishment of defendant by returning a 'not guilty' verdict. Luigi was acting in self defense; which is a common defense for when someone gets killed and the defendant was acting within their rights. Its the jury's job to recognize that convicting luigi of murder is incorrect due to the circumstances and make sure the proper verdict is handed down. 'not guilty', regardless of the letter of the law.
pretty simple. again, as i told you earlier I've thought about this a lot longer than you have. Its also pretty clear you have no experience in designing systems that need to deal with adverse actors. and that you're generally an asshole thinking everyone on a jury is an idiot and that you're probably one of those idiots thinking people need to specialize in law to know right from wrong.
That's not what equally means. The same law needs to be applied to everyone. Making exceptions creates inequality.
If that is Luigi's legal defense then the jury needs to weigh the evidence of that claim and if supported of course they would return a not-guilty verdict. That's not jury nullification.
This is, quite obviously, a corruption of the legal process. If jury nullification is an intended feature of the legal process then why aren't jurors instructed to find the defendant guilty, not-guilty, or exempt? Why don't defense attorneys tell jury's that the application of the law in this case is unjust and therefore they should find the defendant not guilty?
Your fixation with DeSiGnInG RoBuSt sYsTeMs is absurd. It doesn't support your position in any way. I could just as well say that you obviously don't have a job that requires much thought or requires you to consider complex problems with unquantifiable ethical aspects.
You thinking about this for a long time also does not support your position in any way. People can believe in all sorts of nonsense their entire lives. The inflexibility and inability to support your position is a pretty good indicator that you haven't really thought about this but merely like how the concept feels.