arcbyte

Eh, managing multiple chat windows gets difficult. After a certain point, I have so many different threads going that a software factory is the only thing keeping things going.

Needs change when you go from 2 or three chat windows to 100.

You guys are still dealing with widespread suppression of civil liberties that occurred during the illegal repression of the Freedom Convoy more than 4 years ago.

Just remmeber that "a" is short for "any". So do want the specific thing, or will any thing work?

A siblings commenter stated this opinion much more persuasively for me. When these people arrive here, they are absolutely guests. It's incontrovertible that they are guests. Theres no debate.

However, time is important and after a certain amount of time or perhaps even connection made to the community, a person does move from guest to neighbor.

A lot of us still consider domain squatters to be trolls. Use it or lose it.

Well, China is already "the past". They're past the Lewis turning point. We'll have to look somewhere else for "the future".

I'm agreeing with the comment you originally responded to about the statistic being misleading because it is an almost self-evident truth that prosecutors ultimately expend their limited resources on the cases they are most sure of the defendant's culpability based on the evidence.

You countered about plea deals being coercive because the plea deal is generally much lower than the maximum or even average sentence of people who go on to be found guilty and ultimately sentenced after a trial on the merits.

I then countered that people who ultimately "become subject" are generally guilty and therefore the coerciveness, if you accept it as such, doesn't really matter.

I'll concede two things: 1. "become subject" is doing a lot of work there. What I meant is people who the state ultimately chooses to prosecute. There are plenty of people who are arrested and ultimately not charged for various reasons. So my assertion is really that if the state ultimately chooses to proceed with prosecuting someone, they have some evidence that a crime has happened and that you are connected to it in some way that implies some degree of culpability. 2. My definition of "the system" is just the adversarial trial of evidence in front of an adjudicator. I would not include the laws or legislative system in that, although it is obviously related and we both hate that.

So my whole point is really to say that because of overbroad laws, it really is more likely than not that a prosecutor can find a law for which there is evidence that you are guilty of breaking it. Hence, plea deals existing or not, you would have been found guilty in court, and therefore my assertion from personal experience is that most people who the state ultimately chooses to prosecute are guilty and plea deals are not the terrible coercive force on innocent people you claim it is.

What youre saying is true, but the reality is that the number of people actually affected by it is vanishingly small. Of course its not vanishing if youre that person affected, but as far as the system goes, its negligible.

The reality is that most people who become subject to criminal prosecution are guilty. The reason can often be attributed to overbroad laws, but that still means you are guilty and will likely lose your criminal case. The prevalence of plea deals is just a performance optimization on top of that fact - most people are guilty at that stage and we'll let you off a little easier if you avoid the time and cost of a trial.

Innocent people are coerced to plead guilty, but you also have to realize the number of "innocent people pleading guilty" also contains guilty people who convinced lay people, who never saw or reviewed the evidence, they were innocent. As a prosecutor during a plea negotiation I once almost dismissed a charge against a girl who convinced me that she was innocent until I actually looked a security tape before signing the dismissal. She was 100% guilty. This is another interesting point about how busy prosecutors are - i didnt even bother to review the evidence against her before offering her a plea deal.

All this to say, if you end up coerced into accepting a plea deal despite your innocence, you are not a normal person. Yes, there's at least one normal person out there who was coerced, but they're the exception that proves the rule.

Courts need more funding, laws need to be relaxed and fine tuned, we need to stop the school to prison pipeline, but even with all those problems the system works pretty damn well.

Well we dont really like it when you burn the flag in protest if thats one of the alternate worships you are suggesting.

The values you exactly stated:

> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The moment my mom needs my help to login to something because she clicked the button but now it's expired / she got a new phone / raison du jur, I will be totally unable to assist her. It's a horrible concept being foisted on unsuspecting victims.

In general, we Americans really, really love our country. Our flag still represents values tied closely to our revolutionary war and and independence. Obviously the flag gets wrapped around all sorts of causes, even contradictory ones, but that core kernel of shared values is truly universal.

So as individuals we choose to fly the flag a lot.

You are correctly stating that stare decisis is really just (very) persuasive precedent for the court reconsidering its own decisions, and that it is not binding on other jurisdictions that are not lesser.

But these words belie the fact that stare decisis is largely a social construct for the judiciary. The right case and (very) persuasive argument could and does overcome precedent of any level in any court. It's just a matter of framing this case as "different" enough in a way that your reviewers (whether a higher court or a political concern) will agree with.