Nostr Web Client

The soundest of logic

TheRupertDamnit 10mo ago

They never said to whom it was fair...

They told me in government school that it was supposed to be fair to the people

TheRupertDamnit 10mo ago

Yeah, which people? Because I was taught the same thing and kept watching it not work out that way.

Their people haha

Comte de Sats Germain 10mo ago

Good points. I wish I knew more about how it works. I especially wish I knew more about when a jury is not used.

Two more things stand out as injustice, IMO :

- the use of multiple laws about a single criminal act to multiply the alleged crimes and the punishment. They basically blow it out of proportion and turn the law into terrorism - terrorism is the use of violence to control a population. That's exactly what our justice system does.

- the death penalty. It doesn't matter if someone "deserves" death. Killing them removes any possibility of new evidence or circumstances coming to light which would justify their actions, or repudiate the allegations. Killing the defendent also introduces a bad incentive - corruption can be covered up by killing the would-be whistle blowers. Considering how obvious these problems are, I must conclude that anyone advocating the death penalty is an objectively evil person, and if it is truly out of naivete, then they are statists and are complicit with evil.

IMO, the evidence is overwhelming that our justice system is actually an injustice system.

Very good points. I would ask you to think about who the victim of these “crimes” are. For example, if you tint your windows too dark in your car, who is actually harmed by this? Not very clear if anyone is. On the other hand, it is very clear who is harmed in the event of theft. In that case, justice would be to make the victim whole. Return the stolen items and compensate the victim for any loss of productivity in the absence of those items. If someone stole my car and destroyed it, I’m not getting justice when that person goes to jail. I still need a car lol

Comte de Sats Germain 10mo ago

Exactly, those are also great points. Justice is making things right - what we have is, at best, a revenge system.

And the revenge system has bad incentives because the revenge is profitable to someone. Someone benefits when people go to jail for longer sentences at the expense of taxpayers.

I was reading (or misreading) the US constitution and I remember reading about a part where (at some point) warrants must have 2 party consent. Meaning You must be notified and allow representation at the warrant hearing and lose that judgement, and at some point that was papered away to single party (the state).

I don’t understand what you mean by 2 party consent

IIRC you must be notified, and you are allowed representation at a warrant request. You were allowed to "protest" a warrant. No jury just you (your representation) and the state and judge.

That’s wild they just threw that out lmao

Chances are I read that wrong, but that's how I understood it

YODL 10mo ago

From my very surface level AI “research,” it seems like two party consent applies to wire tap/recording and not search or arrest.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You’re probably thinking of the concept of two-party consent in the context of privacy laws, particularly regarding wiretapping and recording conversations, rather than warrants.

Two-Party Consent and the Constitution

There is no general constitutional requirement for two-party consent when it comes to law enforcement actions like search or arrest warrants. However, the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, which means that warrants must be issued based on probable cause and approved by a judge.

Two-Party Consent in Wiretapping and Recording Laws

• Some states require all parties in a conversation to consent before it can be legally recorded. This is called two-party (or all-party) consent.

• Other states only require one party to consent.

• The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) generally requires one-party consent, meaning as long as one person in the conversation agrees to the recording, it’s legal.

Could Warrants Have Ever Required Two-Party Consent?

There is no historical record of warrants themselves requiring the consent of both law enforcement and the person being searched. However, before modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, there were legal debates over how broadly authorities could conduct searches. Early American legal traditions were influenced by English common law, which heavily criticized “general warrants” (warrants that lacked specificity).

If you’re thinking of an old legal principle or a specific historical case, let me know and I can help track it down!

Unreasonable searches and seizures is the most vague and bullshit law ever lol it’s all subjective and gets abused regularly

YODL 10mo ago

Yeah, no doubt. Guess that was point of your original post

> You’re probably thinking of the concept of two-party consent in the context of privacy laws, particularly regarding wiretapping and recording conversations, rather than warrants.

Yeah that's not what I meant. It latched onto the "2 party consent part" unfortunately that was the best way I could phrase it.

YODL 10mo ago

Ah, figured there was something more to what you were saying.

First I thought private justice cannot work. But when it was laid out to me, I realised that it is the only system that can work.

It’s tricky because a private justice system can centralize power and eventually kill off its competition and form a monopoly.

Monopoly is not inevitable in a free market. It happens only when someone offers the best service that everyone uses, and consistently maintains their quality.

They would be at the mercy of people who seek justice and actually use their services.

I agree but when it comes to monopolies on violence, I feel differently. It’s the reason why we are in the state that we are currently in.

Ahhh I can understand where you're coming from.

Don't you think that courts need to fund themselves in order to keep functioning and that acting adversely will result in them losing people who would come to them?

After all, reputations matter a lot and a bad judgement or failure to agree to due process will mean they risk losing it.

My understanding is that they did fund themselves before. Income tax was not enacted until 1913.

Damn, that year really was a major turning point in the US huh

I get why people are full-on abolitionists now

Found this old note i think you’d like

nostr:note1l5vt37lvec9uqjqfkelh9lezthtav9pnnhjgtw7zwhgccugvccmq4vjuyf