It’s true that mandatory voting nets a lot of low information voters. It also encourages a lot of people to check the major party’s policies who otherwise wouldn’t bother.
I’m not aware of low information voters swaying the vote one way or another.
By making voting mandatory, it becomes mandatory for everyone to have an opportunity to vote.
Two party preferential is not the same as two party.
A lot of elected reps needed preferences from other candidates in order to make 50% of the vote. Those reps know where their bread us buttered.
Sure. The problem I have with such a “release valve” is that it would be inherently unjust. Of course some defendents of a certain race or gender or appearance would be more likely to have their case nullified.
If you think courts should be more lenient, then codify it in law. The reason why it’s not codified, is because punishments are already designed to be appropriate to the crime.
Yeah it “makes sense” in a fairy tale kind of way but it’s obviously not based in reality.
The role of the jury in criminal trials is to review questions of fact and to determine guilt or innocence according to the law.
what do you mean a “looser” system? Do you mean like, good baddies like luigi walk but bad baddies like mexicans or weird looking people don’t?
Where you, as a layperson, believes that the legislated law does not adequately address the circumstances of the accused, you are not just “allowed” to find the accused not guilty; you are morally obligated to do so.
Did you just make this part up because it sounds nice ?
I haven’t seen a lot of this at all. In the last week with daily visits there would be less than half a dozen I’ve seen.
Loads of web UIs (photon & tesseract) as well as android apps (thunder) blur NSFW images optionally.
Just supposition but a few reasons I can think of…
There must be a lot of crossover between people who have the skills to host an instance, people who have the time to host an instance, and people who enjoy this type of imagery.
Also, there’s no honor among thieves.
These guys persons are flirting with danger in many cases. I’m pretty sure the law in my jurisdiction considers anime to be CSAM if a reasonable person is likely to conclude that the person depicted is a minor.
What I’m saying is someone might be willing to walk that line with whatever niche community they want to host because they can manage their own risks. However it would be a huge risk to host other communities lest you fall afoul of the law.
You haven’t actually rebutted anything I’ve said.
Jurors have no responsibilities to the justice system
That’s just semantics. Jurors participate for a reason.
A system where jurors just nullify cases when they don’t dig the vibe is obviously not a justice system.
The only reason the western world is falling all over themselves to believe in jury nullification is because our justice system is completely unjust and wealthy people can just string things out indefinitely.
This is a super unpopular opinion in 2025, but I’m a grown up and happy to take the downvotes.
Jury Nullification isn’t really a “thing” as in it’s not intended to be a function available to the jury.
The justice system intends for Jury’s to perform a very specific function: to find a defendant guilty or not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
However, jurors must be able to make that determination free from any concerns as to repercussions against them. The system couldn’t work if a juror feared being held responsible for their finding. Imagine if overlooking or misinterpreting something as a juror could be a crime? It would present a very ready mechanism for corruption “Any juror that finds Trump guilty will be subject to prosecution by the next republican government”.
So, jurors have absolute protection from any responsibility as to their findings, and as such they are able to say “we think luigi probably did commit this crime but he seems like a great guy so our unanimous finding is not-guilty”.
It’s a subversion of the justice system. Jurors may take this third option without consequence but they are not upholding their responsibilities to the justice system.
My concern with jury nullification is that if jurors can decide whether the law should apply in whatever case, they’re essentially making up the law based on nothing more than their feelings about what happened. Additionally, it makes a court case more of a popularity contest than a fair application of the law.
The common rebuttal to what I’ve said is that the justice system is rarely just. That may be the case but justice is not going to be improved by moving to a kangaroo court. We may as well throw defendants in the river and pronounce those who do not drown to be guilty.
Sure ok, maybe the term “wealthy” was a poor choice.
Salespeople spend all day reading people. I’m confident they could identify a shabby looking tech bro ready to spend $40k from a leftie trying to waste their time.
I doubt the vast majority of people could actually string a car salesman along for more than a few minutes without feeling awkward and cringey.
Going to a dealership, looking at a car, talking to a sales guy, doing a test drive… you’re really only there for 45 minutes until it’s time to sign the offer or leave.
Also, sales guy is going to be reluctant to spend much time with you or take you for a drive if you don’t really look like a tesla kind of person (wealthy).
this is one of those polls where I’m deeply concerned that the number of worried americans is not much much higher.
How much crying baby do you really need on TV or film?
The vast majority of the time it’s just the sound of a crying baby rather than an actual crying baby.
If you really needed a scene like that, a breastfeeding mother could tell you when her baby is going to start mewling wanting the next feed.
It’s as though Trump think’s he’s the first person in history to realise that canada has some nice things.
If you have a $200b trade deficit you can just take over that country and then there’s no deficit.
There’s a variety of reasons.
Does it count as vigilantism? That’s subjective, dependent on the definition of vigilantism.
Is vigilantism generally a good or a bad thing? It’s bad. A justice system needs to be designed to be just, which is why we separate the roles of police, jury, and judiciary. The intention being to develop fair and just outcomes. Vigilantism has no process.
Someone just arbitrarily determines someone’s guilt and punishment.
Brave derives revenue from advertising.
Brave devotees are the only people I’ve ever seen defending advertising as a user friendly revenue model.
You don’t see the point in telling citizens to take an interest?
Ok mate.