of course they did, the penalty for getting caught destroying evidence is far, far less than the penalty for the price fixing they’re accused of. the law is designed to incentivize them to do this.
we could make it so that the penalty for destroying evidence in a court case once its been subpoenaed is twice the penalty of the original case, but we don’t. we could make CEOs responsible for the actions of their employees (after all, they’re quick to claim responsibility for the actions of their employees when those actions generate money), but we don’t.
It’s not going to stop until we start holding executives physically responsible for their crimes in disfiguring ways. “Why is the right half of your face missing, Bob?” “Insider trading” he writes on an index card because he’s been debarked.
Come on, not even zelensky had any hope they would accept this peace plan. They’re basically asking Russia to stop the war and give back all the territory they occupied. The Ukrainian counter offensive stopped at a brick wall, the Russians have no reason at all to do this.
The counteroffensive is moving forward slowly because the Russians put a ton of mines and trenches in the way. Plus they committed their best troops to stopping it. Still Ukraine is slowly moving forward in the south.
I wouldn’t want to be there right now on either side. But basically the Ukrainians are winning because their artillery is better. Once Ukraine moves their artillery within range of the highway along the Sea of Azov, the troops protecting Crimea will have their supplies threatened. This is the general plan and they’re getting closer.
I never said this in unwinnable, but don’t make any sense to propose a peace plan to Russia right now demanding them to return all the land they occupied. Ukrainians are not dumb, they know this, this peace “proposal” is just a piece of propaganda to western media to say they are trying to start peace talks with Russia or some shit. The Russian ministry answered this out of anger but he’s not wrong, the Ukraine is only getting their territory back if they can put a huge pressure on Russians, possibly only if they can manage to make Russia fear to be attacked on their own territory. And even if this happens we have to trust Russians won’t nuke Ukraine to protect their own territory.
There have been a lot of exceptions. However the majority of wars are longer as if you don't think you can win surrender terms are generally better than death.
Sure, if you fight in the middle of the desert with little cover and no mud, progress is fast once you cut through the defensive lines. Vs fighting in mud and forests.
Western people are funny to say the least, i dont know why, if it has something to do if the fact u guys always lived in such a privileged position that u can live in a fantasy world.
Try to be pragmatic. I never said it had to be quick, I never said this is unwinnable right now, I just said that makes no sense for the Russians to accept this terms right now, and Ukrainians are not stupid, they know this. Or were u expecting putin to wake up this morning feeling bad for what he have done and just move his troops out of Ukraine?
They’re making slow progress constantly but the front lines are barely moving. There’s obviously a chance for a big break through as the first defences are always the heaviest and it should get easier after that, but there’s still a long way to go, and they’re both taking heavy casualties every single day.
There’s obviously a chance for a big break through as the first defences are always the heaviest and it should get easier after that
That’s the opposite of Russia’s defensive doctrine, which would only be exacerbated further by the ability to deploy reserves where necessary. It could be a different story if Ukraine wasn’t having to commit their exploitation forces just to try to reach the first lines of defense; even if they break through tomorrow they won’t really have the manpower to do anything with it.
The only actual progress being made is in destroying the equipment NATO managed to cobble together and losing trained manpower. Even if a miracle happened and Ukraine managed to make some breakthrough, what exactly is it going to be consolidated with given that they spent past three and a half months beating their head against a wall. They’ve already thrown in all the reserve brigades that were originally meant to come in and consolidate the gains now.
They didn’t have any hope because Putin is a warmonger. Any “peace plan” that Russia would find acceptable would just delay the inevitable and give Russia time to build back up, they’ve already shown their cards. Russia needs to give up on its territorial aspirations and give back what it’s stolen. Russia could’ve held onto Crimea even had it just not invaded Ukraine, the rest of the world had basically turned a blind eye to it (it wasn’t right, but that was the reality), instead they get to watch their military turn to dust, just like Putin will be doing within a decade.
I’m not judging who is or who isn’t a warmonger or whatever, let’s just be pragmatic, it makes no sense at all for Russia to accept those terms. Were u expecting the Russian Govt. to suddenly wake up one morning feeling bad for what they’ve done and just move the troops out of Ukraine, including Crimea who’s under Russian control for over a decade now, and say “sorry, my bad”? This 10 point plan they “proposed” was only made so western media can say they’re trying to stop the war, which they aren’t. And again, I’m not saying they have to stop the war, I’m just analyzing things objectively.
I’m saying Putin can stop this war right now by going home. This is all Putins’ fault supported by oligarchs. It makes complete sense for putin to accept these terms, because he will eventually be forced to.
I’m not saying that all, but facts on the ground were that, 2014–2022, Russia had control of Crimea and nobody was going to do anything about that for fear of getting into conflict with Russia. That Crimea even “passed” into Russian hands without much of a fight from the international community is probably what emboldened Putin to go after the rest of Ukraine. What I’m saying is that had he stuck to just that sort of low-level “piecemeal” approach to carving out sections of Ukraine, like what was do e with Crimea, he wouldn’t have gotten nearly the amount of international backlash that he got.
Is Crimea part of Ukraine? Yes, but when it comes to international borders, facts on the ground are what matter in the long-run. Had Putin bided his time, eventually it would’ve just been accepted as fact. Nobody else would’ve ever cared enough to start a war over it. With Putin going for all-out-war though, he’s revealed Russia’s military weakness and facts on the ground have become mutable again, giving us the chance that we’ll hopefully see Crimea come back into Ukraine.
holy shit stop invading and leave? OUTRAGEOUS! the nerve of zelensky to ask for what is Ukraine’s! I think you should go join the trenches to show how mad you are!
No, see when he says “a fairer distribution of global benefits” that needs to start with distributing ukrainian benefits to russian oligarchs obviously!
Why do you want to force the people of Crimea and the Donbas to be subjected to a government that they despise? Why don’t those people have any right to self determination?
you mean like the Uyghurs? genocide is really fucked, what are you doing about the Uyghurs?
edit: no-one is forcing russian simps in Crimea to move anywhere you absolute nonce, they can live free under ukraine or go suck balls in russia if thats what they want
the ukranian military were bombing civilians? please, lets see a non-cooker source.
Also i love you mention 2014, i wonder what relevant action happened then that made the whole area a shitstorm? i dunno, must just be a coincidence, surely nothing to do with the incompetant half-strength military staffed by drunk conscripts that has been shooting rockets at hospitals and malls for the past 18 months
edit: also respond to the Uyghur situation. by default you are condoning genocide
Zelensky knowing that there wasn’t a hope in hell of Russians accepting this is false? You know it, I know it, we all know it. It’s just politics. Of course Zelensky has to offer something, even if he knows they won’t bite.
The Russians have to claw something out of this debacle to sue for peace. And I hope the Ukrainians give them nothing, and take back the Crimea while they’re at it.
Either Putin propagandists have now infiltrated mainstream liberal media or you have no clue regarding the state of the war, I’m going to go with the latter here
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has formally ruled out talks with Russia after it illegally declared four Ukrainian regions to be part of Russia.
Zelensky’s decree released Tuesday declares that holding negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin has become impossible after his decision to annex four regions of Ukraine. The decree also approves the decision of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council to strengthen Ukrainian defenses and seek more weapons from the country’s Western allies in response to Moscow’s move.
Ah so “has become impossible” is now “has been made illegal”. Tankie text comprehension, I presume.
time to remind people that zelensky made having peace negotiations with putin ILLEGAL
Can you quote the part of the article which made you think so? I don’t see the article saying what you claim it says.
<span style="color:#323232;">A reminder from the KidsPost team: Our stories are geared to 7- to 13-year-olds.
</span>
It’s alright if you are younger than that. Otherwise, I think all you achieved is reminding people how dishonest and untrustworthy lemmygrad users can be. You would have helped your cause more had you not made that comment.
I guess if we ignore the two comments pointing out how the article doesn’t state what he claims Zelensky said, then yeah nobody has any arguments.
Or were you expecting arguments against a fictional statement? Because I can come back with some just as fictional counter-arguments if that’s what you were looking for.
“Russia’s upper house of parliament on Tuesday voted to support the treaties that make the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions of Ukraine part of Russia.”
Don’t get tricked by big media the way they did with the McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit.
Google was notified for a decade that they had a dangerous route listed. Safety standards aren’t made for people acting perfectly, they’re made for having multiple layers of safety for things that can kill or maime you.
Yes, there is SOME level of personal responsibility, but if Google told 100,000 people to do something dangerous, it’s inevitable that someone would have a combination of factors that caused someone to do it and die.
Google just claims over and over that it’s too big and has too much data to be able to have any sort of customer service or maintenance, and this is the result.
Yes, other people are also responsible, but that’s what the legal system is for, to look at evidence and not headlines and place blame. I wouldn’t be surprised if Google settles out of court on this one and promises to fix their maps.
It’s commonly used as an example of a frivolous lawsuit, because everyone knows coffee is hot right? Of course coffee can burn you.
The issue is that this particular coffee was negligently hot, so hot that the victim had third-degree burns on her privates. Also, the victim originally only sought coverage for medical expenses, but instead McD went to court and had to pay out a much larger amount.
Anyone who thinks this lawsuit was frivolous, try to find some of the pictures of her burns.
IIRC the narrative and the headline was “duh ! Hot coffee is hot! Idiot! “. ……But it turned out something like, McD coffee was like 99 degrees versus 70 degrees for your average cup and it was decided that makes a difference.
You’d have to check that, but that’s what I remember .
IMHO you still handle a hot drink like it could scald you , that’s your responsibility and your taught that from like 5 years old . However, you wouldn’t expect to be handed pretty much boiling water in a plastic cup .
Well it was super super hot, like you said. It was handed off to some grandma, the lid popped off, and the super hot coffee spilled all over this very old woman’s inner thighs. There were pictures.
Old people have notoriously thin skin. Literally. So this hot-ass coffee burns this old woman’s thin skin, and I think the resulting burns needed to be fixed via hospital visits & maybe surgery. So yeah it wasn’t a frivolous lawsuit.
This kind of thing is why I hate Google Maps. There is no way to ensure that edits are carried out based on your local knowledge, whereas with OpenStreetMap you can just go make the changes that need to be made. It’s been very satisfying for me to go contribute to OpenStreetMap when I see that paths are added or changed, so that the map reflects reality. Meanwhile Google Maps won’t even move an entire park that is in the wrong place.
Russia has been a third world nation since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Politicians just like to use the Russian boogeyman to scare people who remember the Cold War. Putin may be a monster, but China is the real threat.
America collaborates well enough with the rest od the countries. Americas system is bullshit but China is having even more control and is even more destructive. Both are shit but China is more of a threat
No no no, they liberate the country from dangerous potential socialist values, a perceived will of the country to distance themselves from the US, or, you know, because they can.
Thats why I hate america too, and its capitalist system. They are mostly jerks. But they chrisitan way of not knowing what to do except of bombarding is really weird.
But at least its cooperating eith EU and some counctries.
It’s the opposite. China is the one better at collaboration. I don’t think they even sanction anyone unlike America. Standard communist regime behaviour of helping everyone to mess with hardworking capitalist nations and prevent them from making profits.
Maybe, but the housing crisis and shrinking population gives me pause. Not to mention I think there is more internal dissent in China than people like to talk about. China still hasn’t caught up to the US militarily and the gap is no longer closing in.
Do Abkhazians and Ossetians really count themselves stolen Georgian citizens? Do they really count their land as Georgian land stolen by Russians? Your post is ridiculous.
Russia is certainly a regional threat but countries invade and dominate other countries in their sphere of influence all the time. Russia does not have what it takes to dominate on a world stage like they did after World War 2. Their economy is weak, as is their military.
It’s all about money and power, mate. Not race. The US and the Soviet Union are both predominately Caucasian and they were at odds for the better part of the 20th Century. Race has nothing to do with it.
The fact that you think you countered it with logic really highlights the fact that you’re not very good at logical thought. The fact that westerners are racist doesn’t preclude them from hating other systems such as USSR for other reasons. The fact that you don’t understand this shows you lack any capacity for logic. You keep pretending racism isn’t the reason westerners hate China, but the fact is well documented. So in addition to not being capable of understanding basic logic, you’re either a liar or just deplorably ignorant.
Edited: aside from Taiwan, Hong Kong, several other nations in the east. My question was more in the context of China as a threat to anything in the western hemisphere. They are the eastern version of the US, no doubt about it.
With India on the rise as well I think we are transitioning into a pre-WW1 like multipolar balance of power which could slide into WW3. Safest option would be China and the US dominate everyone else and we get another Cold War, but we will see.
I understand your sentiment but as a history major I need to clarify that Russia is literally the Second World Nation. As in, the First, Second, and Third categorization emerged to describe pro-NATO, pro-Warsaw Pact, and unaligned countries.
He worked there for sure, but we don’t know all the details of what he did there. He probably just advised the actual torturers that what they were doing was legal.
There was a Vice Documentary that got canceled recently, apparrenlty he watched people get tortured and recommended force feeding and other fucked up things rollingstone.com/…/desantis-guantanamo-force-feed…
Well, he did use his position to gain the trust of gunatanamo prisoners and when they told him what was particularly stressful to them, he passed that info on to make conditions worse for them. Like, a prisoner would tell him “we usually pick the vegetarian option because we think the meat here isn’t halal” and a week later, no more vegetarian food option. Things like that. There’s also a pretty harrowing account of how he oversaw hunger-striking prisoners being force-fed. People screaming and throwing up and shitting themselves in agony and he stood next to that and laughed. I honestly believe that if he didn’t join the navy to live out his murderous sadism, he’d be a serial killer with a collection of human body parts in his basement. Guy’s a complete fucking monster.
This reads like an ironic shitpost. No one can seriously believe that one person saying mean things can rationalize an invasion that’s killing thousands and hurtsling food security for millions.
I can point you towards many racist political figures throughout history who weren’t fascist. Racist is not the same as fascist. Sure, fascism usually requires creating an in group and an out group, but it’s also a lot more than that and needs to be larger than one person. Even if this person is a fascist, it still doesn’t even mean anything. He doesn’t have the political power to do anything fascist with.
Your pseudo intellectual hipster word salad does not detract from the fact that all of Ukraine’s institutions are very much Nazi to the core. Zelensky last year even paid homage to Stepan Bandera, Hitler army’s collaborator.
Tbf “Asians are subhuman” is what the nazis used to justify killing millions of Russians, Ukrainians, and other USSR ethnicities. Millions of ukrainian red army soldiers are rolling in their graves.
Lemmy.ml and lemmygrad instances are full of tankies. Way I see it it’s only a matter of time before they defederate due to having to deal with sane people since the site blew up or people defederate from them as they’re just bloody annoying.
While true, at which point does defederating make sense? Been wondering this myself. Reality is full of bad actors so we should be capable of countering these threats without purely relying on censorship. OTOH that takes time and energy best spend elsewhere.
I think it all depends on user levels. At present the activity isn’t that much that mods can’t deal with any arguments the difference in opinion creates. When you get to Reddit user levels that becomes a lot more difficult.
Historical and political reasons too. USA keeps arming Pakistan with modern weapons, and they have a single target to use them on. It would be stupid of India to put all it’s weight behind US if that’s a one-sided affair. In an ideal world everyone would side with what is moral, unfortunately we don’t live in that world.
More than old friends. India is heavily reliant on russian arms. Replacing them would be a slow, expensive process. Considering it is surrounded on two sides by aggressors with regular conflicts, jeopardizing relations with Russia is not an option.
I agree with you that India doesn’t need to take sides, but I’m pretty sure Russian/West cooperation had been increasingly positive since the cold war ended, right until Putin decided he wanted to be an imperialist again. The West didn’t make him invade a sovereign, non-threatening country.
Iraq was a bullshit war. Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld should be in prison for lying to American public to involve us. The Iraqi civilian death toll was obscene. Few will disagree with this.
Ukraine is a bullshit war. Putin should be in prison for lying to involve Russia in it. Few outside Russia disagree with this.
It’s not a soccer match. These statements are self-consistent, not contradictory.
I agree; the joke is that multinationalism is used as a shield. Russia is a far-right fascist state just like America has a right and a far right party, just like how Europe is sliding back to fascism, and while China dives into its thought police hell world all while all of the above exploit the rest of the world and or there own citizens to push nationalism to its upmost cancerous potential untill the whole house of cards snaps on the inferno thtis clmiate change.
What is Israel supposed to do, though? Just let the Hamas attack go unpunished? I get that there’s something between doing nothing and what they’re doing, but I’m just curious what people think they should have done instead. (Realistically. Obviously leaving is no longer an option for them because all the people who live there.)
This is the same excuse Turkey uses when people bring up Armenian genocide. If we think really hard and cannot find some in-between solution, does that mean the genocide is justified? Is it our job to, or are we even capable of, finding a solution? Is it not the job of politicians or some other professionals?
What do you mean unpunished? Based on the history of Israel and Gaza, the attack on Israel was the punishment. So beyond the fact dropping thousands of bombs is absolutely unacceptable, any lethal retaliation is not going to help the situation. It’s an emotional reaction with devastating consequences.
Im Icelandic and I can confirm this. This massive asshole (Kristjan Loftson) has plenty of money and one hobby, killing whales. He as lost aprox. 20m€ on whaling in the years he has been hunting them.
He will probably kill 10-20 finback whales so we are not talking about very large numbers. Also it would not be good for Icelandic politics if someone would kill him, he could become somekind if whale killer martyr and Iceland would continue to kill whales after his death.
There’s a minimum whale population before genetic defects start having impact between mates…
I’m not advocating direct violence, but mixing sand into the hunting boat’s engine oil and other more peaceful methods should be considered if the government won’t listen to reason by its people.
Well that’s just as easily solved by more killing. There can’t be more than like 20 people in the country that have a massive boner for murdering whales.
The rise of far right politicians and fascists is directly related to the dramatic drop in assassinations of political figures.
The solution? Start murdering fascist and far right politicians that exploit the working class and the environment to add to their already endless coffers. This is the only viable answer.
One that seems to have fallen out of favor the last few decades with these ultra rich fascist assholes being more prominent all over the globe the last decade or two
Unless you subscribe to any one of most of the worlds’ belief systems. Or unless your parents did and some of it sort of rubbed off on you. Or if you think law and order is important. But outside of that, yeah, of course, killing is completely neutral moral gray area. /s
I don’t care to argue anymore semantics. You get what I’m saying and I get you. I just think that killing feels wrong for good reason, and that’s a very popular opinion. Stop acting like it’s a silly one.
Killing is wrong in general, but can be justified by circumstances.
It is never neutral. Only ever unacceptable or justified.
E.g. killing billions by making the world uninhabitable is unacceptable, whereas smashing an oil execs face in with a baseball bat is obviously justified.
Sadly, there is whale meat in our supermarkets and restaurants. The only reason they can sell it is because some of the whale is “necessary” for “research”, and the meat is a “byproduct”.
Why are you government or judges so shady when it comes to this? Like, what is the actual reasson, that this is not forbidden and nobody is in jail? You have a democracy in iceland, right?
Every state’s geography has different challenges. Texas is blessed with natural resources and rich farmland. It is a rich state. Spending that money on murder buoys instead of immigration services is a crime against humanity.
There needs to be trust in the justice system. Otherwise, there’s no point in having a justice system. If he’s cleared, then there wasn’t enough evidence and he should be considered innocent. That’s how our justice system works. Don’t break the social contract because of your vendetta against rich people.
The problem is that our society doesn’t encourage people to immediately report crimes nor provide sufficient support for people who have been abused.
Do you think OJ Simpson is innocent? Would you want your daughter or sister to marry him?
The are different standards for a reason. Society is perfectly capable of being aware that someone is a giant dickbag without there being enough evidence to justify using the power of the state to remove their freedom and incarcerate them. Those are two extraordinarily different things and you know it.
To suggest otherwise is to imply that the government is a perfect arbiter of dispute that we should all just blindly accept. Something tells me you wouldn't be so keen on that stance when it worked against your interests
I think we need to recognise the moral panic of the situation too. People are out there looking to cancel others, others are out to use the moment for financial gain, and then there is the legitimate ones too. We dont know which they are and for the most part, the judicial system is only OK at separating them.
If you can smear someone and that’s it their life is over, no matter the truth of it, then what justice is that?
What’s the truth here… not very many people know, clearly.
I think we could use a little more moral panic about the actual number of people who are actually raped every year and maybe worry a little less about your proposed miniscule hypothetical
Hahahaha, that's hilarious. Because I'm actually at extraordinarily high risk of that happening. I'm a nurse. That happens all the time to nurses.
Thorough investigations are done. And no, I don't worry about it. You know why? Because I'm not a fucking rapist sexual predator and everyone who knows me knows that.
You gotta wonder about people who are sooooooooooooo worried about being "falsely" accused of rape that they think false accusations are worthy of jail time. What exactly are you doing out there in the world that this is a major concern in your life? That you think it's even possible for your whole life to be ruined over a baseless accusation?
Because this is simply not something I worry about at all.
This is way too close to “if you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing to hide” logic.
What exactly are you doing out there in the world that this is a major concern in your life?
Making terrible choices in friends, for one. Never been accused of SA, thank christ, but figured out too late that many people live in their own reality, and rewrite history once the friendship ends. Have also known people who have been in that situation, and even if no charges end up being pressed, it’s still a gut-wrenching situation to be in.
The issue of how to handle SA accusations is such a nightmare that it’s practically inevitable that we have both innocent people convicted, and guilty people acquitted at the same time. Most of the time we don’t have the kind of oversight and institutional procedure you would enjoy if accused.
You're being deliberately obtuse and conflating completely different situations, and I think you're doing it on purpose to muddy the waters. An accusation after a breakup that cause a fight among friends is a very different situation from a report to the police. Even a report to the police often doesn't trigger an investigation. And God knows it rarely triggers an actual prosecution. These are simply not things that you need to worry about, if you're not running around the world raping people. If it causes you anxiety that severe, get therapy.
Because it's not the giant boogeyman that internet apologists like to pretend it is, with data:
Because I'm sorry, but losing a few friends is not a terrible enough consequence for me to get worked up about. Shit happens, friends get in fights and stop being friends over all sorts of dumb shit. I see zero reason why that would cause someone to go through their lives in mortal fear that they might be "falsely" accused of a sex crime.
The issue of how to handle sexual assault accusations is not complicated. I told you, we handle them all the time in the medical field. You default to protecting the accuser, you do a thorough investigation, if the investigation turns up no evidence, you move on.
A "he said, she said" situation that never gets formally investigated, but causes the breakup of some friendships is not as terrible as being actually raped. It's just not.
People, for a whole host of reasons, can be and very much are in different situations than you. Some have very little defense against such allegations, and so it should not be very difficult to understand that they could have their lives destroyed in an instant by false accusations.
For instance, if they engage in non-normalized sexual relations (for their area or country, obviously), be that interracial, same sex, BDSM, etc., particularly if they are not “out”. It’s very easy to go from “he tied me up and we had a great time”, to “that guy did me wrong somehow so now I’m going to press charges and claim he tied me up against my will and raped me”. If you don’t think this happens you’re living in a dream land.
You're living in a dream land if you think going to the police with nothing more than "yes I went over to his house consensually and it turned bad from there" is likely to result in a legal prosecution.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but this has actually happened. The case I know of, personally, involved a bar owner. He was exonerated after a few years being dragged through the mud, but he ended up having to shut down his bar and move out of town to be left alone. This stuff happens.
Do I have a better alternative? No, it’s a complex issue and we definitely don’t want to victim blame, but we also don’t want to destroy people’s lives over just allegations. It’s a delicate balance. I think one thing we could do, at very least, is to actually stand by the innocent until proven guilty ideal and not publish the identity of the accused until a verdict comes out. This is the way it is in most of Europe and a “perp walk” happening like it does in the US would free highly illegal.
I’ve given a lot of thought to this issue in the past and I think it all boils down to one indisputable fact:
“You just believe her” is completely at odds with “innocent until proven guilty.”
“We should believe women” is a laudable phrase, and it makes us feel good to say it, but men are victims as well, especially trans men. “We should believe victims” would be better, but it is a begging-the-question fallacy, it assumes the victimhood is true. The people who made that not possible are specifically the people who have made false allegations in the past.
It is far, far more common for women who allege to be completely ignored, ridiculed, dragged through the mud should they choose to pursue charges. That's a simple fact of the world. RAPE IS A BIGGER PROBLEM THAN FALSE RAPE ACCUSATIONS.
I also express little sympathy for people who worry more about the side effects of the Covid vaccine than they do about the negative effects of actual Covid. Because one of those things is an actual serious problem, and the other is a boogeyman used for political purposes.
Supported by data. You know, kind of like the difference between false accusations of rape and ACTUAL RAPE.
The people who have made false allegations in the past are exactly the reason we can’t just believe every victim that comes forward without proof. They are why we can’t have nice things. It’s not about the odds and ratios either, the state putting a completely innocent person in jail is a travesty of the system. The travesties of what we do to each other are the realities of living on a planet with other humans, we are terrible to one another regularly. We must do the absolute best we can to support victims of sexual assault…untested rape kits are a fucking abomination for instance and I’d be fine with tar and feathers for whoever let that happen. But we still must stop short of allowing even one innocent person to be put in jail.
I recommend watching “The People vs OJ Simpson” on this. It doesn’t really get into guilty vs not guilty, but just showcases just how complicated things got in that case.
The government performing arbitration is a power that society has vested in them. The solution to a flawed system is to fix the system, not vigilantism.
The lack of trust in the judiciary is a failure of government and a failure of society.
NO! That is how the court system, and therefore the state sees him in regards to punishment and treatment. That does not mean, and has never ever ever ever meant, that being declared not guilty means they are proven to be innocent. Just that there’s wasn’t evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
A new justice system? Might as well overthrow the government and start over then, because the common law system is literally the foundation of society.
That’s exactly what we want, yes. And we’ll end up getting it too, with climate collapse, so trying to intimidate me into submitting to a system that is inherently biased and abusive and has done nothing but hurt myself and everyone I know and love personally will get you nowhere.
I will NOT change my mind on this and you can’t make me.
WE will not change our minds on this and you can’t make us.
We can and will make something better and there’s nothing you can do to stop us.
Wow. Reading through those Descriptions is rough. Many of them involve the cop lying with verbal testimony not matching bodycam footage. One I saw was after the guy was already restrained, he bit the cop’s finger, so the cop shot him. Others show that they are looking for (or will make up) any excuse to shoot: one person had a lighter in their hand which caused the cop to shoot and kill them. It’s honestly disgusting that people will go out of their way to defend this system. I guess that’s a level of privelege that I just don’t understand; how can you possibly be sure you’ll never be in such a situation with a lying, murderous police officer?
Huh, looks like this is talking about cops, of which there are millions of in America, and cops lying in reports, and not a about a court of law ruling a lynching was okay.
You’re taking an overly specific definition of lynching and framing the situation wrong, and coming to a bad conclusion.
A court’s refusal to punish it, in nearly every case, is tacit support. They aren’t saying “please, lynch!” but they’re saying they won’t punish lynching.
This also easily fits any definition of lynching that’s not so restricted so as to only include “hanging black people from trees in town squares”.
Obviously, no one should be convicted if evidence is insufficient. The issue that I have is that it’s difficult to believe someone is innocent when multiple people have alleged similar complaints. Does that make him guilty? No. But it increases my suspicion. And I’ll never be able to shake that suspicion. It doesn’t mean I want him locked up. It only means that I’m not comfortable with his art going forward. Which is a shame, because he’s one of the best actors of our time.
I’m not saying to blindly trust the judiciary, but that not trusting the judiciary is an inherent failure in society. We need to fix that, not focus on individual cases that will keep happening if our judicial system is morally and ethically compromised.
Innocence is VERY SPECIFICALLY NOT WHAT COURTS declare. They only ever declare that there wasn’t enough evidence presented to proof guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Right, so the only thing the court states is that innocence could not be disproven. Incidentally that’s similar to how statistical hypotheses are being proven - by showing that it’s unlikely to be false.
The presumption of innocence doesn’t preclude the fact that criminal courts don’t find someone innocent, rather they find someone not guilty.
This is for the simple fact that it’s neigh impossible to establish someone’s innocence, whereas it’s easier to establish that there isn’t enough evidence to consider someone guilty.
This case is, and sexual assault cases in general are, a great example why we can’t expect criminal courts to establish innocence.
These are often cases with little evidence available either which way, because often there are no other witnesses. Even if there would be physical evidence of a sexual act, it’s still challenging to prove under what circumstances those acts have occurred, specifically on the matter of consent.
To expect a court to be able to say with certainty that something hasn’t occurred is unreasonable.
That is not to say that it isn’t good that we have these high standards before we impose punishment onto someone, but it is important to recognize what it means when a court comes to a decision.
Additionally the presumption of innocence is just that, a presumption to establish who has the onus to prove something, there is no additional meaning attributed to it in the legal principle beyond establishing who has the onus to prove the facts at hand.
In that regard it’s rather unfortunately named, as it would’ve been more apt to name it “the presumption of not guilty” but I suppose that doesn’t roll as nicely off the tongue
To add to that, that the presumption is specifically a principle that only has meaning in criminal court, because the burden of proof is generally higher than in civil court.
People can be, and have been, found liable in civil court for the very thing a criminal court has found them “not guilty” on, on the very basis that criminal court can’t establish innocence and that the bar that needs to be met in civil court is generally lower than in criminal court.
As such to bring up the presumption of innocence in a vacuum is kind of like bringing up the generally recognized human right of freedom of speech when a social media company bans someone and removes their post.
Yes, the concept exists, but it’s irrelevant because it doesn’t apply to the topic at hand, because the concept aims to govern a very specific circumstance that isn’t applicable here and withholding the important context surrounding it (i.e. the role it plays in criminal court for the presumption and the fact that it only limits governments for the freedom of speech) masks the limitations of said concept.
None of the above aims to reflect my opinion on Spacey’s innocence (or lack thereof), rather it aims to provide the necessary details to put things into context.
no, we are not part of the government. same reason the 1st amendment does not apply to private property. it protects speech from censorship from the government.
Considered innocent, by the state organs. Considered innocent, in how the state treats them. NOT EVER AT ALL PROVEN innocent by the courts.
Courts are not and have never been concerned about proving innocence. All they care about is guilty or not guilty. Not guilty could mean innocent, but again, the courts don’t care about that.
Considered innocent, by the state organs. Considered innocent, in how the state treats them. NOT EVER AT ALL PROVEN innocent by the courts.
Courts are not and have never been concerned about proving innocence. All they care about is guilty or not guilty. Not guilty could mean innocent, but again, the courts don’t care about that.
What I’m saying is that the basic social contract used to be that you would be considered innocent until proven guilty by your peers. If we abandon we mess with the foundations of society at our own peril.
worldnews
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.