If that were the case you’d be right. But as of right now, this is the only check on their power. And it is an intentional check. The 2A was put in place to fight tyrants if it came to it, and it is quickly coming to it.
And it’s not inherently corrupt. It can be used as a check against immoral law, or it can be used to refuse justice to just law. It’s entirely based on the case it’s used in.
But as of right now, this is the only check on their power. And it is an intentional check
You said intentional.
It’s entirely based on the case it’s used in
Perhaps, but if it’s ever used to support justice then it’s inevitable that it would also be used to undermine justice.
A jury’s role is to determine whether a defendant committed the acts of which they are charged.
Allowing a jury to determine whether the law ought to apply to a given defendant undermines the judicial system. Why bother having laws if you can simply convene a jury of citizens to determine an appropriate punishment?
I’ll grant you that I could have phrased it more clearly, but I was speaking about the 2A for that section:
If that were the case you’d be right. But as of right now, this is the only check on their power. And it is an intentional check. The 2A was put in place to fight tyrants if it came to it, and it is quickly coming to it.
Perhaps, but if it’s ever used to support justice then it’s inevitable that it would also be used to undermine justice.
Yes, which is why it cannot simply be labeled corruption in all cases. It’s dependent on the case it’s used in. It can be used to free somebody from stealing food for their star ijg family, it can be used to let lynchers get away with their horrid actions, and everything in-between.
Why bother having laws if you can simply convene a jury of citizens to determine an appropriate punishment?
Because the majority of the time it isn’t applicable, or used. It’s an edge case.
The oligarchs that own the country.
I’m proposing that the inherent protections the judicial system gives people be used to protect Luigi.
Justice is dead so long as billionaires can cause immeasurable death and suffering without repercussions.
You’re operating under the incorrect assumption that the public can control the law.
If that were the case you’d be right. But as of right now, this is the only check on their power. And it is an intentional check. The 2A was put in place to fight tyrants if it came to it, and it is quickly coming to it.
Like the right to an attorney? Sure.
Jury nullification is not an “intentional feature” of the justice process. It’s corruption.
I said inherent, not intentional.
And it’s not inherently corrupt. It can be used as a check against immoral law, or it can be used to refuse justice to just law. It’s entirely based on the case it’s used in.
You said intentional.
Perhaps, but if it’s ever used to support justice then it’s inevitable that it would also be used to undermine justice.
A jury’s role is to determine whether a defendant committed the acts of which they are charged.
Allowing a jury to determine whether the law ought to apply to a given defendant undermines the judicial system. Why bother having laws if you can simply convene a jury of citizens to determine an appropriate punishment?
I’ll grant you that I could have phrased it more clearly, but I was speaking about the 2A for that section:
If that were the case you’d be right. But as of right now, this is the only check on their power. And it is an intentional check. The 2A was put in place to fight tyrants if it came to it, and it is quickly coming to it.
Yes, which is why it cannot simply be labeled corruption in all cases. It’s dependent on the case it’s used in. It can be used to free somebody from stealing food for their star ijg family, it can be used to let lynchers get away with their horrid actions, and everything in-between.
Because the majority of the time it isn’t applicable, or used. It’s an edge case.