Do you remember me? I killed your family and now I am going to kill you too.

Why will no one give me the front bump?

Fixed rate, don't get shafted.

PBSC and only $100 rent sounds nice, and I'm sure I'd get a part time job easy with my work experience, but I really don't want to leave the company I'm with now. I've grown incredibly attached to it.

Quote from: Dietrich Six on April 19, 2016, 04:02:50 PM

2 hours give or take.

You wouldn't want to live with me anyway fam. Lot of gay shit goes down around here. And people are pretty rude tbh.

Pbsc?

Quote from: Dietrich Six on April 19, 2016, 03:57:08 PM

Close, you could go to pbsc.

Palm beach state college, formerly Palm beach community college.

Come live with me, rent would be like $100.

Quote from: Dietrich Six on April 19, 2016, 02:37:36 PM

Quote from: ALIE on April 19, 2016, 02:26:00 PM

Quote from: Dietrich Six on April 19, 2016, 02:20:58 PM

I'm 100% sure that most who plead their innocence in jail are guilty of the crime they're in there for.

Yeah, that's the problem. And yeah, it's obviously an understandable mistake that the jury ruined someone's life if evidence points to them, but that doesn't make the jury's crime any less impactful. And just like when anyone makes a mistake, it's still their fault and they still have to take responsibility. If I accidentally kill someone, I go to jail. A jury accidentally destroys someone's whole life and "lol man thats just the system". People are so apathetic about wrongful incarcerations, even though those and inequality legislation are some of the biggest miscarriages of justice in general.

No one on the jury chose to be there, it's the law. Usually when you accidentally kill someone there's been gross misconduct. Serving on a jury that wrongly accuses someone is not similar at all to killing another person.

And like I said previously that's why our justice system allows for appeals, if they find you guilty ten times in a row chances are you're guilty.

Which is why jury duty in the first place should be optional. So many people I know really want to be in a pool but never get the chance.

And please, the appeal rate for violent criminals is remarkably low. Once you get the "criminal" label, that's what people see you as.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/all-cases/

341 cases and counting, and that's just for this single organization.

Quote from: Dietrich Six on April 19, 2016, 02:20:58 PM

I'm 100% sure that most who plead their innocence in jail are guilty of the crime they're in there for.

Yeah, that's the problem. And yeah, it's obviously an understandable mistake that the jury ruined someone's life if evidence points to them, but that doesn't make the jury's crime any less impactful. And just like when anyone makes a mistake, it's still their fault and they still have to take responsibility. If I accidentally kill someone, I go to jail. A jury accidentally destroys someone's whole life and "lol man thats just the system". People are so apathetic about wrongful incarcerations, even though those and inequality legislation are some of the biggest miscarriages of justice in general.

No one on the jury chose to be there, it's the law. Usually when you accidentally kill someone there's been gross misconduct. Serving on a jury that wrongly accuses someone is not similar at all to killing another person.

And like I said previously that's why our justice system allows for appeals, if they find you guilty ten times in a row chances are you're guilty.

*blaring saxophone solo* 🎷 🎷 🎷

I hope they're right.

I'm gonna vote for Cruz and start wearing a cage on my head while mumbling incoherently about the cosmos.

Kos, or some say Kosm. Awooooooooooooooh!

Quote from: Dietrich Six on April 19, 2016, 02:03:52 PM

Quote from: ALIE on April 19, 2016, 01:53:38 PM

Quote from: Dietrich Six on April 19, 2016, 01:43:20 PM

Quote from: ALIE on April 19, 2016, 01:38:29 PM

Quote from: Dietrich Six on April 19, 2016, 01:34:37 PM

Why have a justice system at all? You can't prove 100% that a man is guilty of a crime. There will always be a question of guilt, and in your scenario that allows criminals to be set free.

You can definitely prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a man is guilty of a crime. If there's any uncertainty, no sane juror should push for commitment.

It's a much larger failing of the justice system to wrongfully give a guilty verdict than an innocent one.

What constitutes reasonable doubt?

And for that matter reasonable doubt does not equal certainty.

We're guessing 100% of the time, you're bound to guess wrong eventually.

Idealistically no one would ever be locked up regardless of the evidence mounted against them.

In reality, yes. Juries aren't perfect, and even if we advocate a "you have to make a mistake, make the mistake of setting a guilty man free" paradigm, there will eventually be a slip in that crack. But the problem is that we don't have that mindset. We don't see wrongfully convicted citizens as the abhorrent travesty that it is. Look at Meta's reponse if you want an example. We have this mindset of "oh hey, we know we convinced the world you're a monster, forced you to throw away three fourths of your life, made you lose your job, family, friends, and perhaps even sanity as you were punished for decades with only the knowledge you were innocent to grasp to, but don't worry. We have this nice "wrongfully incarcerated" package for you. Have some money. There you go. Now go happily spend whatever life you have left in you, champ! The fact we admitted we were wrong and gave you some cash is solace enough, after all."

There are numerous documentaries and newspaper articles that disagree with you.

People have lost jobs, jury members suffer shame and humiliation, individuals have sued for damages and mostly succeed.

We all know it's a terrible thing, but you can't give them their lives back, you can't change the damaging things said. All you can do is apologize and offer what little recompense you can.

As they should. They destroyed someone's life.

And no, we shouldn't offer what little recompense we can. We should make it a big deal. It turns out someone was wrongfully convicted, it should be a scandal. There should be riots, national coverage, public shame for the judge who presided.

Instead people just shrug and say "meh".

"Shit happens", right? That's so disgusting, that people actually think this way. Like it's no big deal. And you know that for every innocent man in jail who's exonerated later, there's dozens more who live and die pleading their innocence.

First of all the judge does nothing but decide punishment. The jury decides guilt. These are every day people who are presented with evidence and have to decide whether or a man or woman is guilty of a crime. Putting them on blast does nothing for the wrongly accused.

Had there been foul play then obviously there should be consequences for those involved, and in most cases this makes national news. It is a scandal, people are punished.

When someone is at the wrong place at the wrong time and is charged with a crime they didn't commit who is to blame? All the evidence points to this person as the guilty party. This is why reasonable doubt is flawed, but it's the best we have.

As for those that plead their innocence that's why we have appeals. DNA evidence allowed hundreds to walk free.

I'm 100% sure that most who plead their innocence in jail are guilty of the crime they're in there for.

I've never considered this before, who up for Chipotle?

Quote from: Dietrich Six on April 19, 2016, 01:39:37 PM

Sign me the fuck up for bottom left. I needs me some bloodborne-esque scenery fam.

Quote from: ALIE on April 19, 2016, 01:40:08 PM

I like Cruz' future. Very spooky.

Don't vote for El Rato

The disease is spread through the blood. It was the fleas, not the rats.

Sign me the fuck up for bottom left. I needs me some bloodborne-esque scenery fam.

Why have a justice system at all? You can't prove 100% that a man is guilty of a crime. There will always be a question of guilt, and in your scenario that allows criminals to be set free.