• 0 Posts
  • 17 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 5th, 2023

help-circle

  • Technically, you’re correct. In this particular case though, I don’t think it’s the best kind of correct.

    Juries are the triers of fact when present. In a civil case, that means the judge can ask all kinds of nuanced questions in the jury instructions, as that could be necessary for the judge’s application of the law later down the line.

    In the US criminal justice system, the laws are meant to be interpretable by the common person (a lot of work being done by “meant-to-be”). A judge only asks them a single question: For the charge X, how do you find? Since juries do not need to justify their decision, they can use whatever reasoning they want to behind closed doors to reach their decision: facts, ethics, or flipping a coin. The lawyers use voir-dire to try to exclude jurors that would be too biased, or would be willing to use a coin flip (juries almost universally take their job seriously—they hold the freedom of someone in their hands.)

    As mentioned elsewhere, an acquittal by a jury in the US is non-reviewable. It doesn’t matter why they acquit. Convictions, OTOH, are reviewable, and judges have famously thrown out guilty verdicts from juries before.










  • This is interesting because I’ve been thinking about switching from Debian to Arch. I’m already running Nix inside of my Debian installation to get more recent apps (I don’t like how snap interacts with the rest of the system, so I avoid it if I can).

    Is there anything else on a more base OS level (like apt v pacman) that you’ve noticed is different, if you’re willing to share?