this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2025
1803 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
72235 readers
2674 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I agree with that the abusive cops and ice is insane in the US, and it should be stopped. I also believe that the US is a corrupt nation in nearly every place of the government and surrounding instances.
But a question surround this, what if the US wasn't corrupt and the judges would actually follow the law (juries wouldn't be able to exist for most cases) and hypothetical if the US had privacy laws for everything besides businesses wouldn't this be the same punishable offence that would protect citizens?
In GDPR countries (among others) nobody is allowed to do something like this with face recognition because the law works for everybody. (Some people are trying to destroy this in some countries, though).
At the same time, if the government is allowed to use facial recognition and other anti-privacy measures to identify people where there is no ground to, then why shouldn't the people be able to do that?
Edit: I am not from the US and my look on life and trias political situations is different than what the fuck is happening in the US
What does this mean?
Edit: read further down that you're in a country that doesn't guarantee jury trials so I'm guessing you're referring to some kind of criteria not being met to trigger a trial by jury
In my opinion you should look at the law objectively, a group of people who aren't fully educated on the law and aren't trained in being objective will not form an objective opinion.
Juries would be fine to give advice to the judge on how the public sees it, but they shouldn't have a real impact on the outcome of the situation. That should be a question of executing the law.
We have no trial by jury in The Netherlands and the international court of law doesn't have a jury either. The just have 15 judges to decide the outcome.
Yeah... As someone who has been on a jury, I have to disagree completely. Putting people's lives into the hands of one (most likely old, straight, white dude in the case of the US) single person is an awful idea. The concept of a trial by a jury of your peers is far from perfect, but it works relatively well.
For an example a single judge being responsible for ruining the lives of thousands of children as a result of outright quid pro quo, look into "cash for kids" scandal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal
Who say it has to be one man, it doesn't have to be one person.
But as somebody who has studied a couple laws (tax laws, some general laws etc) I can tell you that there is so much going on that somebody who hasn´t studied about it shouldn´t have an impactfull stay in it.
In the article you linked had this in the second sentance:
Yes, if corruption is rampant in your country than no it doesn't work, but that also means a jury can be bought. Probably harder though, so I guess you have a point. I know the US is a corrupt nation, but I always think of it not being a corrupt country. The absurd legal fees, getting paid for more than the actual damages among other things don´t really help to get a second opinion in terms of a lawsuit which everybody in at least the western world has a right to as far as I know.
In NL we do often have cases with only 1 judge, but for important cases we will have 3 judges.