Dennis Hackethal
@dennis-hackethal·Joined Jun 2024·Ideas
Founder Veritula. Author. Software engineer. I study the mind and build tools for thinkers. Ex Apple. Translator of The Beginning of Infinity.
#3354·Benjamin DaviesOP revised 3 months agoIn terms of climate, California might be the best place on the planet to live in. But the downside is that you live in California 😂
Yeah. Kidding aside, although California is gorgeous, taxes are a serious issue. Politicians have floated the idea of a future exit tax. Retroactive, I believe (!). It’s made me think twice about moving back there.
#3348·Benjamin Davies, 3 months agoThis might be a difference in dialect. I mean ‘mustn’t’ as in ‘must not’.
Example sentence: “His shoes aren’t here. I guess he must not be home then.” —> “I guess he mustn’t be home then.”
This sentence is much more natural than “His shoes aren’t here. I guess he cannot be home then.”
I mean ‘mustn’t’ as in ‘must not’.
I realize that. The linked Wiktionary page covers the contraction. The contraction isn’t the issue.
#3339·Benjamin Davies revised 3 months agoMaybe juries can be done away with. Not all levels of courts have juries, so they mustn’t be fundamental.
mustn’t
Maybe this is the non-native speaker in me, but do you mean ‘can’t’? I thought ‘mustn’t’ means ‘may not’: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/must_not
#3339·Benjamin Davies revised 3 months agoMaybe juries can be done away with. Not all levels of courts have juries, so they mustn’t be fundamental.
I think having a jury of your peers is important in criminal cases and they shouldn’t be done away with. Juries protect the accused from abuse of authority and unjust laws.
There is no contract with the country. A contract implies consent, the freedom to sign or not sign. A forced signature is null and void.
#3330·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 months agoWho would subject themselves to that [gruesome] experience [of being a juror] voluntarily? The difficulty of finding volunteers alone means that jury duty must be mandatory. And if it were voluntary, it wouldn’t be fair for those who did serve.
… if it were voluntary, it wouldn’t be fair for those who did serve.
By that ‘logic’, we never could have abolished slavery. What a stupid argument.
#3330·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 months agoWho would subject themselves to that [gruesome] experience [of being a juror] voluntarily? The difficulty of finding volunteers alone means that jury duty must be mandatory. And if it were voluntary, it wouldn’t be fair for those who did serve.
The difficulty of finding volunteers alone means that jury duty must be mandatory.
Not necessarily. It might just mean that courts suck at persuading people to be jurors.
Who would subject themselves to that [gruesome] experience [of being a juror] voluntarily? The difficulty of finding volunteers alone means that jury duty must be mandatory. And if it were voluntary, it wouldn’t be fair for those who did serve.
#3328·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 months agoI think [the inner workings of the justice system are] goddamned impressive. And humbling. And when I get a summons to serve? I go. Because both “the People of the State” and that “John Doe” deserve my best effort. I would expect it if I was ever on the wrong side of that -vs- and I would hope that you would too.
Why does John Doe deserve your best effort? He’s a random stranger to you. Why should you care what happens to him? What has he done to deserve your effort and consideration?
This sounds like sacrifice/altruism.
https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sacrifice.html
https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html
I think [the inner workings of the justice system are] goddamned impressive. And humbling. And when I get a summons to serve? I go. Because both “the People of the State” and that “John Doe” deserve my best effort. I would expect it if I was ever on the wrong side of that -vs- and I would hope that you would too.
If jury duty were required for a free society to work, that would mean some people would have to be enslaved for a while to ensure freedom for everyone else. In other words, freedom would require some amount of slavery. That’s contradictory.
#3325·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 months agoIf jury participation were voluntary, “it would just be the same batch of NCIS fans deciding every case.” (Source)
No, again, if you persuade enough people, you will have a diverse pool to choose from.
If jury participation were voluntary, “it would just be the same batch of NCIS fans deciding every case.” (Source)
#3323·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 months agoPeople are ordered to appear for jury duty simply because, if it were a toothless request instead, hardly anyone would show up.
Nonsense. If you persuade people, make it worth their while, they will show up in droves.
People are ordered to appear for jury duty simply because, if it were a toothless request instead, hardly anyone would show up.
#3319·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 months agoBut then some people might not be able to afford a jury trial.
There are loans, charity, insurance, etc.
#3319·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 months agoBut then some people might not be able to afford a jury trial.
By the same logic, we should force people to produce food for free, because there might be some people who can’t afford it and would starve.
Ironically, countries that nationalized food production have historically starved millions to death, while countries where food production is purely voluntary and only done in exchange for payment feed their populations best. In the latter countries, food is good, abundant, and cheap.
#3319·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 months agoBut then some people might not be able to afford a jury trial.
Yes. Juries don’t grow on trees. If you want a service, you have to pay for it.
#3318·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 months agoPeople say the same thing when it comes to police services and the fire department. The solution to the free-rider problem is to not provide the service to people who don’t pay.
But then some people might not be able to afford a jury trial.
#3317·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 months ago[I]f you’re on trial, you can force the state to use a jury to decide the facts of the case.
So it’s a trade off - if you have the right to a jury trial, so also do you have the obligation to serve on a jury for a person who has chosen a jury trial.
Otherwise, you get what’s called a “free rider problem”, people who refuse to serve on juries still insisting on a jury trial if they’re on trial.
People say the same thing when it comes to police services and the fire department. The solution to the free-rider problem is to not provide the service to people who don’t pay.
[I]f you’re on trial, you can force the state to use a jury to decide the facts of the case.
So it’s a trade off - if you have the right to a jury trial, so also do you have the obligation to serve on a jury for a person who has chosen a jury trial.
Otherwise, you get what’s called a “free rider problem”, people who refuse to serve on juries still insisting on a jury trial if they’re on trial.
No, you want unbiased people. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t care.
#3310·Dennis HackethalOP, 3 months agoForce means you get people who don’t care about justice. For example (emphasis added):
Another issue that makes me a bad juror is I simply don't care. Unless someone does something to me or someone I care about, I don't care. If someone had done something to me or mine then I couldn't be a juror for that trial anyway. If John Smith steals Jane Doe's car, I don't care. Even if John Smith kills Jane Doe's [sic], I don't care. I think killing someone is wrong but if it doesn't effect [sic] me personally I don't care what punishment they get. If that makes me a bad person, so be it.
You want people who don’t care. You need neutrality.