You have to have a good education to realize how fucked we are.

I listened to a clip a minute ago on the radio of dumbass Trump and his dumbass supporters from the show he made on inauguration day, signing orders, and the one withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord stuck out to me. “Could you imagine Biden doing this?” Raucous applause. “This is going to save $1,000,000,000,000.” Raucous applause.

No, I could not imagine Biden doing it, because it’s fucking idiotic. The world is burning. The air is turning to poison. Only cutting greenhouse emissions in half will provide any hope of anything resembling social stability over the next several decades and the only way to do that is to reign in the dozens of corporate poluters who are responsible for such desolation. It will save a trillion dollars for corporations, which savings they will absolutely not pass on to Trump’s gullible, stupid supporters, but in fact they will use to live lifestyles marked by even more greenhouse emissions, yachts and air travel. Even the capitalists who are self aware enough to see what’s coming will use their savings to build lavish prepper bunkers and hoard medical technology. When shit hits the fan, and MAGA rubes are chanting “let us in” outside the bunker while wild fires close in, maybe as they suffocate and burn to death they will realize they should have done more.

One good looking kid with an education going into politics isn’t going to overcome the power structures that have these donkeys cheering wildly for the missteps towards their own demise. You have to have the education to know that we are past that. Their kids will be dying of small pox, and they’ll still be blaming their grief and anger on the woke left and diversity, equality, and inclusiveness, on immigrants and the unhoused. The oligarchs own the government and the media. Only the people at large can depose them, one by one. We have all these mass shooters looking for infamy, maybe after Luigi they will see they can get actual fame, adoration, if they choose a culpable target instead of rooms full of innocent kids.

I think that’s what Luigi’s supporters are saying.

Here is an Emerson Poll that found TOTAL 17% of people agree the killing was justified, and the highest demographic was young people with 41% (still not a majority). https://www.axios.com/2024/12/17/united-healthcare-ceo-killing-poll

The poll was about a week after the killing.

Another small poll of college students found this:

according to a poll conducted by College Pulse and shared with Newsweek—32 percent of survey participants said he should be sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole; 14 percent chose life imprisonment without the chance of parole; 26 percent preferred a fixed-term prison sentence; and 2 percent believed he should get the death penalty. The remaining respondents chose “other” or “no opinion.”

No, you’re right the 1st time. It’s eattherich, hosted at kbin. It’s a weird side effect of federating. The original instance hosting the comm is gone, but all posts and comments go into the local instance first (in this case, Ozma’s posts to .world) to be federated back to the main instance (kbin). Since kbin is gone, that federation ain’t happening, and nobody from any other instance can view the content from their home instance. But you can directly view .world’s local copy of what it thinks the instance should look like, which contains all of Ozma’s contributions.

I’m going to copy WoodScientist’s post. Don’t know how to tag, sorry, but credit goes to him for this.

"I would say that jury nullification isn’t just some accident of the legal system, but the primary reason we have juries in the first place.

Judges will say that juries are meant to just decide the simple facts of the case. But what sane person would ever design a system that assigns 12 random untrained nobodies to do that task? If all that mattered was judging the facts of the case, why not have 12 legal scholars instead? Why isn’t “juror” a profession, just like being a lawyer or judge is? If we want people to just apply the letter of the law to the facts of a case, why not fill juries with professionals, each who had a legal degree, and who have sat as jurors hundreds of times? Judging evidence and reading law is a skill. And it’s one that can be educated on, trained, and practiced. Why do we have amateur juries, when professional juries would clearly do their purported job so much better? Or why not just do what some countries do, and have most or all trials decided solely by judges? What exactly is the point of a jury? Compared to everything else in the courtroom, the jurors, the ones actually deciding guilt or innocence, are a bunch of untrained amateurs. On its face, it makes no damn sense!

No, the true reason, and really the only reason, we have juries at all is so that juries can serve to judge both the accused AND the law. Juries are meant to be the final line of defense against unjust laws and prosecution. It is possible for a law itself to be criminal or corrupt. Legislative systems can easily be taken over by a tiny wealthy or powerful minority of the population, and they can end up passing laws criminalizing behaviors that the vast majority of the population don’t even consider to be crimes.

The entire purpose of having a jury is that it places the final power of guilt and innocence directly in the hands of the people. Juries are meant as a final line of defense against corrupt laws passed by a minority against the wishes of the greater majority. An unaccountable elite can pass whatever ridiculous self-serving laws they want. But if the common people simply refuse to uphold those laws in the jury box, those laws are meaningless.

THAT is the purpose of a jury. It is the only reason juries are worth the trouble. A bunch of rank amateurs will never be able to judge the facts of a case better than actual trained legal scholars with years of experience. But by empowering juries, it places the final authority of the law firmly in the hands of the people. That is the value of having a jury at all.

Jury nullification is not just some strange quirk or odd loophole in our justice system. It’s the entire reason we have juries in the first place."

Why let only judges make the jokes then and not the people in the jury too?
Imho that’s a fairness in a sometimes unfair system.

I have two arguments to defend jury nullification. First of all, in our system “jury nullification” is NOT a policy. It is the name for the inevitable fact to that members of a jury can decide to vote “innocent” without being subject to some kind of interrogation.

My second argument is this: I think jury nullification is actually a good policy, because the only thing it produces are delays unless fully 12 out of 12 randomly selected citizens think this application of the law is completely unfair. If the citizenry believes a law is unfair with that much unanimity it probably IS unfair.