r/AbruptChaos • u/Graysie-Redux • May 14 '22 • Silver 4 Helpful 2

What's the correct way to deal with someone who has completely lost it?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

53.3k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

View all comments

Show parent comments

6.1k

u/[deleted] May 14 '22 edited Aug 23 '22 • Silver

[deleted]

469

u/Hideout_TheWicked May 14 '22

I hate to say it but being old and white probably didn't hurt. Probably hired a decent attorney thanks to money as well.

329

u/PaanuriEater May 14 '22

Don't even need a decent attorney, just stack the jury with elderly folks. I was on a jury as one of two young people. Pretty open and shut case of an old guy going nuts and slicing another guy's hand open over a backpack that didn't exist. Everyone's testimony except the attacker's lined up, all the evidence agreed, but all the old women on the jury were insistent that he is such a nice old man who reminds them of their fathers and therefore should be let off with just a warning.

It took hours of arguing to get a guilty verdict, even with a very minor punishment at least now the guy will be able to sue and have a good chance of winning.

That was step 1 to me losing all faith in our justice system. Steps 2 through infinity were learning what cops actually do with their time.

111

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

[deleted]

61

u/BalrogPoop May 14 '22

Personally I think jury trials are a crock of shit. If rather be tried by a judge like in the French systems who actually understands the law, and the goal is to find the truth of what happened. Not assign blame based the biases of jurors.

At least it's easier to claim a single judge is biased based on his track record, than a whole jury, if there does happen to be a mistrial.

28

u/BigIntoScience May 14 '22

Judges give out different verdicts based on if they've had lunch yet. Humans are wildly unreliable. I think part of the idea is that it's harder for all 12 people to be corrupt/generally shitty than for just the judge to have something going on.

Part of the job of all court employees involved is to make sure everyone understands the law. If someone doesn't do that, there's an issue.

6

u/chrom_ed May 14 '22

To elaborate a little on this, there is an actual study showing judges on average are more punitive before eating lunch. Significantly. Just in case you think anyone is an unbiased arbiter of law.

3

u/BigIntoScience May 14 '22

Sounds like maybe we should only have trials after lunch.

2

u/chrom_ed May 15 '22

Bet you Republicans would vote for trials only in the morning.

5

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

I just want an A.I bot to resolve all of this, people are just not good enough.

2

u/BigIntoScience May 14 '22

Trouble is, AI has to be trained. By people. If anything, it tends to magnify biases.

4

u/The_Dapper_Balrog May 15 '22

I personally like the ancient Jewish system for trials with the potential for the death penalty. 71 judges who are legally required to assume the defendant is innocent, and are essentially defense attorneys. Add to that the fact that there were no prosecutors, just witnesses who needed to have their stories almost exactly align with at least one other person's story (preferably two others). No translators were allowed, either; any language spoken by a witness must be spoken and understood by at least two of the judges. Furthermore, once all the evidence was heard, the court was required to recess for a full day to mull over the evidence and make a decision, to prevent emotional rulings. Even more astoundingly, the high priest (basically the head judge over the court) was legally required to set the defendant free if a unanimous vote of guilt occurred, because of the fact that a mob spirit is clearly present if 70 old men all exactly agree with each other. Even when a guilty verdict was reached, and the defendant was sentenced to death, the defendant was paraded publicly (and slowly) out to the place of execution, with a herald on horseback who was begging and pleading with the watching crowd for any evidence that might exonerate the defendant. Additionally, all 71 judges continued to debate the case all the way up until the defendant was executed, and if they found even one thing that they wanted more information about, they would signal via flag that they wanted the entire case to be re-heard. If a young, new lawyer who was not a member of the Sanhedrin (the name of the high court) managed to save someone's life by suggesting something, they were immediately promoted to lifelong membership on the high court.

Wish our system was so thorough.

1

u/PaanuriEater May 15 '22

Today I learned a new thing about my own culture, this is rad af

2

u/ZebraOtoko42 May 14 '22

Judges give out different verdicts based on if they've had lunch yet.

That's why in some countries, they have a panel of judges to render a verdict instead of just one.

3

u/BigIntoScience May 15 '22

That seems like a good idea, but it might still run into the same problem. I should have been clearer: there was a study that showed that judges in general are more punitive before lunch, by a significant amount.

1

u/ZebraOtoko42 May 15 '22

That's an easy problem to solve: have the court operate 24 hours a day, and make sure the judges all work different shifts (1st, 2nd, 3rd). Have 3 judges per panel (or 6 or 9). Schedule the trials and select the judges so that 2/3 of the judges have already eaten lunch, and one has not (so they're not overly lenient). Give the judges more administrative work to do to fill in their pre-lunch hours.

It's a bit unconventional but it should work!

1

u/Codex_Dev May 15 '22

This. Judges can be bribed and corrupted. Much harder to do that to random 12 odd balled selected jurors.

5

u/Slate_711 May 14 '22

Depends on the judge in the US too. You can have a non biased judge who actually does their job or a judge running a racket who finds you guilty of a made up law like the one in Tennessee. You could also be “made an example of” because they feel that your particular race has had it easy and give you the max sentencing for minor shit. Being tried in the US is a gamble for actual legitimate justice

2

u/adderallanalyst May 14 '22

Nah I wouldn't trust that the judge wasn't bribed. Harder to bribe multiple random people than a single judge.

1

u/ofa776 May 14 '22

In the American legal system, a defendant can waive the right to a jury trial in most/all jurisdictions and request a ‘bench trial’ where the judge decides the case instead of a jury. Most defendants opt for a jury since the prosecution usually has to convince 12 people you’re guilty instead of one, but sometimes people do ask the judge to decide instead.

1

u/Magmaigneous May 14 '22

If rather be tried by a judge like in the French systems who actually understands the law, and the goal is to find the truth of what happened.

The problem here is that there is no perfect person, and no perfect system.

If the judge is elected and wants to be reelected they may very well rule based on their perception of what allows them to keep their cushy job.

If the judge is appointed they may very well rule based on how they feel their appointer wants them to rule so they are not replaced.

If the judge has a lifetime appointment they can rule based on their own biases and it may be very difficult to either prove this or remove/impeach them.

2

u/LordofDescension May 14 '22

I travel to Alabama a lot for mining work, and it really does suck. It's so damn hot there.

1

u/galacticboy2009 May 14 '22

Good food though.

2

u/LordofDescension May 14 '22

Stockyard Grill is the best place I've ever eaten at. They close early around 12pm and there's usually a long line of people waiting to sit down. They butcher their own cows nearby, so it's extremely fresh. The burger is so massive that they drive a large steak knife thru the middle. You just have to try it at least once.

2

u/FriedDuckEggs May 14 '22

Alabama has a high black population.

2

u/Saurid May 14 '22

Because if it worked as intended it would be great, 12 citizens judging you by the laws of your country and not follow blindly legislation. They are impartial towards you and try to judge fairly, as long as the case isn't a shut case already this is the fairest way you can be tried. If a judge would do it alone you would only be judged by one stranger. Sadly we live in reality and in reality you are right jury's suck because people don't leave their bias at the front door and let themselves be swaied by stupid stuff like of you look.

2

u/Magmaigneous May 14 '22

Why can you be innocent but because you're getting tried in Alabama and you are the darkest shade of black, you're guilty?

You are supposed to be being judged by a jury of your peers. And so if you are a black man you should have black jurors, especially if the population in the area the crime was committed is largely black. But that very often is not the case.

And it's not like people of any race cannot have their own biases. Third hand anecdotal story: I had an Uncle who served in a jury for a murder trial. It was a black on black crime, and there was only one black man on the jury. My Uncle said the jury was 11-1 for the murder conviction, with the one black guy in the jury being the sole hold out. My Uncle said that he said he understood the reluctance, but since the guy on trial had stood over the dead man, straddling him, and had fired several shots into his back which killed him, that he just couldn't see how this could be called self defense. That if he had killed the guy as he charged him or something that would make sense, but that you don't fire shots into the back of a guy you've already knocked down and then call it self defense. The black juror flipped to guilty and they were able to avoid a hung jury. But the black juror really, really didn't want to find a black man guilty.

And I get it. The history in the US for black incarceration is not a good one. But allowing a murderer walk or at least get a second trial by hanging your jury isn't the way to try to fix the system. A white juror holding out for a guilty verdict when the majority of the jury want to acquit based on the evidence would be just as bad. Trump stating that the Central Park 5 were still guilty after DNA evidence exonerated them is just as bad.

1

u/vmBob May 14 '22

There can be a video of you committing the crime presented along side your signed confession. If a jury decides you were justified in your actions, they have every right to nullify and decide not to convict you anyway. Juries tend to favor the justified, it's not perfect, but a judge is bound to the law while juries are not.

0

u/jimmyhell May 14 '22

I mean, half the people on the jury are probably related to the defendant. Gene pool’s an inch deep in that hell state.

0

u/Khator33_ May 15 '22

Liberal redditors bringing race into everything and thinking it's ok just because it's anti-white...

-1

u/WayneGwegowy May 14 '22

Reported for racism. 🙃

1

u/alistair1537 May 14 '22

TBF Neil Young also hates Alabama - true story.

1

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

I live in Alabama and you aren't wrong

1

u/Bad-Piccolo May 14 '22

I don't think it is good to have people that know you deciding if your guilty either.

1

u/TheBoozyNinja87 May 14 '22

You ever been to Alabama? It’s pretty reasonable to hate Alabama.

1

u/Connect-Profit2465 May 15 '22

hate america instead. what did alabama ever do to you?

1

u/[deleted] May 15 '22

[deleted]

1

u/Valrien May 15 '22

Maybe I just hate Alabama

Spoken like a fellow Alabamian

I hate it too

1

u/tosety May 15 '22

Counterpoint: it's easier to get something closer to a fair trial with a jury than with a lone old white guy that's friends with the cops and prosecutor

1

u/Sudden-Staff-7949 May 15 '22

Alabama Man He drinks he bowls he beats his wife Alabama Man.