Wild Feed
A catch-all world journalism community for news, reports, blogs, editorials, and whatever.
-
Be cool to each other. Instance rules apply.
-
All posts should link to a *current, *good quality blog, article, editorial, listicle, research paper, or something that can be considered "journalism."
-
Post title should be the article headline.
-
No misinformation or bigotry.
-
For paywalled media, please provide an archived link in the text body of the post.
-
Commenters who don't read the posted article may receive temporary bans. This is a community for informed discussion.
-
This instance has no rules against calls to violence, please don't report general wishes for violence. I will moderate direct implications of violence (i.e. I will shoot x person in the head) at my discretion.
Tag if needed:
[NSFW] and [Content Warning - x] — At your discretion.
[D/M/Y] — If the publication is older than a month. You can just tag the year if the article is more than a year old.
[Month and/or year] — For old but relevant articles. Use your best judgement.
[Conspiracy Tuesday] — Conspiracy theories/occult themes/cryptids/pseudoscience. On Tuesdays.
[E-mail required] — If an e-mail is needed to sign in.
[Archive link in post] — For paywalls and account sign-ins, link the main article in the URL, paste the archive link in the text body.
*Current means the article contains the most up to date publically available information on the subject, within reason. Older publications are welcome as long as they include a date tag.
*Good quality means the source has a good reputation for accurate journalism with a reasonably clean fact checking record.
Check out !Independent_Media@lemmy.today for independent news from around the world or !indy_news_canada@sh.itjust.works for Canadian independent publications.
All communities were created with the goal of increasing media literacy and media pluralism.
Sources posted here include:
https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/
apnews.com/
https://www.theguardian.com/international
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/us
Icon image by z0r0z on pixabay, depicting a silhouette of a world map on a paint-splattered background.
Banner image by Lucentius on pixabay, depicting crumpled newpapers.
view the rest of the comments
"I had reasonable doubt, but I don't like how it feels to challenge my own biases and I misunderstood or lied during jury selection, so no, I don't have reasonable doubt."
That's the summary of this man.
I don’t care how any juror comes to their conclusion. Religious views, merit of the facts, an apparition came to them in a dream, it doesn’t matter (except for the case of tampering). Whatever their verdict, that’s it. The fact that this guy is being scrutinized for his verdict is alarming. They go through a selection and vetting process to get on that jury. Once they are on that jury, they can come to any conclusion for any reason. They don't need to explain their verdict. It's just guilty or not guilty. The court can implore them to follow the law, but that doesn’t mean they must. Even if they perjured to get on that jury, the perjury is a separate thing in of itself and sure, charge them, but they cannot be compelled to come to any particular verdict. If they could, then trial by jury would be nothing more than window dressing for authoritarianism.
So this would work for you?
"She floats, so she's a witch, and all witches are guilty so she's guilty"
A criminal act to get on the jury should be disqualification from serving in said jury.
I don't care what leads a juror to their conclusion either, I care that the juror is actually supposed to be a juror.
They should have stricken him during the vetting process.
After that, tough titties, can't be upset if you actually want a fair system that can't be influenced by outside forces.
If the juror didn't cooperate for other reasons, for instance, if the law was unjust or being applied unfairly, though still lawfully, you'd probably want a juror who isn't trying to be a juror.
As far as the criminal act to get on the jury, charge him. But if he wasn't vetted out, it's nobody's fault except the lawyers'.
I suspect you're arguing because you side with the juror, not because the logic is sound, and I have a problem with that, but let's stick with the facts.
He perjured himself, as in, he lied, on purpose or otherwise. Lawyers aren't mind readers or psychics, you can't place complete blame on them because someone else commited a crime to get on the jury and they didn't catch it.
The system did exactly what it's designed to do, it mistrialed because a juror didn't follow the rules
The problem I have, and most people should have, is that because of one juror who didn't follow the rules we are extending the time, suffering, cost, and damages that shouldn't have happened.
Yes! They should have, and because the juror SNUCK into the jury unfairly, it wasn't a fair trial.
He IS the problem. He started it. He made ALL of this worse. Not the lawyers, who could have done better, not the system, designed in the way that it is, not even the woman who murdered her children.
This is already an incredibly terrible thing, but people like the juror who lie to get what they want make it worse for everyone else.
Defending the person who commited a crime to make things worse because he wasn't caught early enough is just asinine.
This particular juror lied about his criminal history during jury selection. He shares culpability here.
This guy is guilty for wearing sneakers, and you can't even question me. This is a totally perfect system and I can derail the whole case because this guys wearing sneakers