No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
I actually do feel it was intended and is part of why the founding fathers felt a jury of the peers was important. I think they intended it as the ultimate check on the system in that if despite everything some crazy laws are passed they could be kept from being enforced.
That doesn't really check out.
In the US the constitution defines how a court is supposed to be run. It's more or less identical to the English system, which was never defined in a constitution but just evolved over a millennia.
There were no founding fathers who wrote a document to include this "ultimate check".
Additionally, if this were an intended "ultimate check" it would become "the way" that court cases are resolved. A judge would merely be a steward conducting proceedings and a jury would just mete out justice based on the vibe of the matters before them.
The far more obvious reason jury nullification is possible is what I've already said - jurors need to be able to make a finding of guilt or innocence free from retribution. The deleterious side effect of this freedom is that jurors can say "this whole system stinks and we find the defendant to be purple", without any consequence.
"We The People". The first three words establish the philosophical model of the constitution. "We The People" willed it into existence.
The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to a trial by a jury of the accused's peers. Not the judicial branch of the government. Not the government in general. It guarantees the right of the accused to take the case directly to a quorum of 12 members of "We The People".
The founding fathers did write a document that included this ultimate check.
They do. Generally, the "vibe" is that legislated law is just and proper, and the jury should apply it as written. Generally, jury nullification is not a factor.
But we are contemplating the special case. Here, we are not constrained to the general case. Here, we are considerong the conditions under which the law itself is determined to be unjust, such as the "Fugitive Slave Laws" we actually had on our books. Here, we can consider a corrupt legislature enacting unjust laws.
Are we forced to jail an abolitionist for aiding and abetting a former slave in escaping his "owner"? Are We The People truly compelled to abide by the evil acts of a reprehensible legislature?
We are not.
The fact that justice won't always be done is not in any way a justification for rendering the unjust verdict demanded by a corrupt legislature.
Its an opinion. There is no way to know what the intention of the peer jury system is as there is nothing they said in either direction for it. I actually think it was intended even before the us but in some historical context it was an elite who was allowed to be on the jury and not ever voting citizen. In the same way they could control the enforcement of the law.
Some opinions are more poorly considered than others.
I 100% agree.