Catastrophic? I see nothing to indicate they care if they're trusted or that there are ramifications for not being so.
this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2024
494 points (99.4% liked)
politics
19237 readers
2080 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Well, the ramifications is more vigilantism. Trust in the justice system is a requirement for people to assume justice will be done through that system. When people no longer trust it then they seek alternative methods.
That sounds bad indeed.
Comparison: over here in Estonia, out of the general population, 71% trust the courts (an increase from 55% as measured back in 2013). Out of lawyers, 88% trust the courts here. A bit north of here, in Finland, 83% of the population "think that the courts are independent or very independent" (I failed to find a direct question about trust).
Thanks for the perspective!
Why would I trust a branch of government who, amoung other things, said; president's rule like kings; money is speech; rulings from the 1600s supercede any modern day interpretation of law.
I wouldn't invite a person like this into my house non the less let them rule a branch of government.
Well, it’s kinda like they’ve given us every reason not to…
Trust in law enforcement has been plummeting for a long time too. Prosecutors are going to have a much harder time convincing a jury of much of anything.
Hence the popularity (on the corporate side, at least) of binding arbitration.
Supreme Court.
Trump.
35% is far too high.
I still meet people who trust a police officer to have their best interests in mind.
Are they white & wealthy?
i trust them to not have our best interest at heart
Now split this data out by income and you’ll get a much different set of data.
For the life of me I'm baffled that's it's as high as 35%
Did you see the popular vote?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Luigi Mangione has a higher favorability than the US justice system.
That's where we're fucking at.
Number of executives held accountable in 2024: 1
Do better in '25
What's his favorability number? I would guess 50% at least.
It's closer to 25% across the board. Younger folks (under 30) have closer to 40%, but the olds are not super stoked on him.
As I had to explain to my boomers “you worked for the state government long term, and 15 years at a single company, respectively, prior to retirement. You both got into good positions wrt: healthcare coverage. People these days are unable to secure promotion without job hopping, and are subject to rolling layoffs, putting them fully at the mercy of whatever low budget health insurance their new companies decide to use, but additionally, companies are swapping to cheaper plans for new/existing employees to save overall money, meaning what you were offered and what your newer peers were offered was probably not the same before you retired.”
They do not at all get it and they are not into my hype for it. Not a bit.
To say nothing of all our other problems, anyone should be able to grasp the idea that the US health insurance industry is inherently evil. They provide and create nothing. It's a whole sector of the economy that exists solely to extract profit by amplifying human suffering and death. It should and must be abolished.
The US justice system has gone out of its way to make itself not trustworthy. It's surprising it's that high.
Well 3 of 9 judges supported putting in codified ethics I believe. So that means I'd think 33% of them were trustworthy. Throw in 2% for the people who answered, yes I trust them.. because they trust them to act in their own best interests, and we got to 35% haha
This guy cried about liking beer and he's in charge of the law of the land.
I don't know about that one, sounds like a fun story haha
Edit: what was it that happened?
But this poll is not about the percentage of the justice system that might be trustworthy. It's about how many people thing the system is trustworthy, and if only 1/3 of the system is trying to make it trustworthy, then it demonstrably isn't.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The guardian are corporate shills. This is a GOOD thing. If Luigi wins, that’s precedence. Time to pop some brass.*
* brass, meaning c-suite
When you have judges accepting cash for kids 35% seems outrageously high.
And Biden pardoning said “kids for cash” folks when they are actually held to account.
Pardons this dude, but refuses to pardon people like Snowden who broke laws for the public good.
yo what the fuck, that is bullshit
From what I read Biden didn't seek that judge to pardon, he was just one person affected by some big mass pardons. In this case I think he was one of like 1500 people who were moved to house arrest for non-violent crimes during Covid, who Biden pardoned all at once.
Still not great, the administration should've reviewed the details of those cases first, but it's not like he deliberately sought the guy out.
The mass wave of pardons has really highlighted to me how broken the justice system is, but for complicated reasons. I can't remember which case it was, but I read of one of the controversial pardons and felt outraged. Then someone, much like yourself, pointed out that this was due to the COVID house arrest stuff, and I conceded that it probably made sense. But then I felt conflicted, because if I didn't want them to be back in prison, why did I still feel so angry?
The unfortunate answer is that prison doesn't give us justice. I have been a victim of crimes that I haven't reported because I have seen how traumatising that process is for victims. When the trial is over and the perpetrator is behind bars, the person most affected by the crime must then struggle to heal from both the trauma of the original incident, and the additional, separate trauma of interacting with the justice system. Seeing someone punished might soothe the sting a little, but it doesn't help one to heal.
Reading about restorative justice approaches makes me feel hopeful, though it's a radical enough approach that we haven't had many chances to see it in action. Even if the cultural consciousness moved away from its retributive understanding of justice, widespread implementation of restorative approaches wouldn't be a straightforward task. However, I feel that for a huge amount of cases, it would be better than we have now.
He tortured children for money. The trial was done. They should have sent him back to prison and never let him out.
Can't help but agree with both of you '(I am large, I contain multitudes.)'
How can we know this for sure though. Not trying to throw rocks at you, but to me that really sounds like speculation. at the end of the day he is accountable for his actions and I have seen way too many "woopsies" in the arc of his career. Past a certain point "I made a mistake" loses all credibility.
I mean, epistemologically we can't know anything for sure. All we can do is try to come to reasonable conclusions with the information available to us.
The job of President is complicated. It is not remotely possible to go over every single detail of every single action. Every president makes whoopsies, I prefer to give benefit of the doubt between mistakes and malice. There are plenty of intentional things to criticize without sensationalizing this sort of thing
view more: next ›