I'm not sure that juryless trials are the answer though.
So we should devise a test to try and determine the difference in false positive and false negative rate in jury and judge lead trials, and how this varies by case type. If this would help answer that, or another of the critical numerical questions that arise from this proposal it could be a good idea. I just do not see how this could usefully answer the question, compared to a controlled trial that does not put people's liberty at stake.
Such is the perverse incentive in hiring illegal aliens: employers can threaten them with deportation if they don't do what is demanded of them. Something I don't think is considered as much as it should be.Rare as it is for me to call for custodial sentences, but I cannot believe this is only a fine of $15k/child
Harrowing photos released by the US labor department taken at a slaughterhouse plant in Nebraska show the conditions more than 100 children faced while illegally working for Packers Sanitation Services Incorporated (PSSI) before the department cracked down on the company for violating child labor laws.
The pictures show employees covered in protective gear, using chemicals to spray down and sanitize equipment. In some of the pictures, made public on Sunday by the television news show 60 Minutes, some of the employees appear to be young children, wearing protective face glasses and holding buckets.
In February, the labor department fined PSSI $1.5m for employing at least 102 children ages 13 to 17 across 13 meat-packing plants in eight states. The fine amounts to $15,138 for each child, the maximum penalty under federal law. The Wisconsin-based company is one of the largest food sanitation companies in the US and is contracted by meat plants to sanitize facilities. The company says it works with more than 725 partner plants.
The department started its investigation into PSSI in August 2022 after a middle school in Grand Island, Nebraska, notified police that a 14-year-old student came to school with acid burns on her hands and knees. The girl told staff that she was working night shifts at a local slaughterhouse plant. Teachers also noticed that other students were falling asleep in class after reportedly working at the plant at night.
“It seemed to be known within the community that minors either are or were working overnight shifts. They told us about children that were falling asleep in class, that they had burns, chemical burns. They were concerned for the safety of the kids. They were concerned that they weren’t able to stay awake and do their job, which is learning in school,” Shannon Rebolledo, a labor department investigator, told 60 Minutes.
When the labor department visited the plant – which is run by the meat producer JBS and is one of the largest beef production plants in the country – during the night shift, they “noted the difference in the appearance of these workers” that were coming in for the late shift.
“They were little,” Rebolledo said. “They looked young.”
Rebolledo told 60 Minutes that she believes the hiring of children “was the standard operating procedure”.
“There is no way this was just a mistake, a clerical error, a handful of rogue individuals getting through. This was the standard operating procedure,” she said, adding that she believed “the number [of children who were working] is likely much higher” than what the department ultimately found.
this is an awful look. he might as well have just said "i hit her on accident during an unjustified shoot/murder attempt on those other people". that's...not a very sturdy defense.
between these, which % is closer to cases which were actually "proved beyond reasonable doubt"? false negatives and positives are both common in the process. i am not convinced we should seek to err more towards false positives. we frequently see criminal/felony convictions with 0 forensic evidence, merely one person (or sometimes a few) claiming that something happened. we observe this in a system where law enforcement is allowed to lie to suspects and pressure them into saying things they otherwise would not, sometimes out of fear of having a full crime falsely pinned on them.
are those formal police reports made under penalty of perjury? i'm not sure how it works in uk, but that seems pretty low.
sexual history may or may not be relevant to the case, for either prosecution or defense. for example, "we had consensual sex routinely for years then i was raped right before we begun a custody battle over children" is a different context to "this person i know from work drugged me". preventing the former from coming into evidence is almost certainly injustice...while sexual history/body count in the latter example is completely irrelevant.
There was something going on, I am not sure of the details but there is an incentive for to keep conviction rates high so anything doubtful was dropped. For many reasons, possibly including those you mention along with the patriarchy, that means dropping lots of rape cases. Getting rid of that incentive would seem like a safer start that getting rid of trial by jury.
i think eliminating this incentive completely is impossible. not sure how much it can be reduced.
Here is an article about it:
oh, i see. yeah, i can't see how setting a conviction rate target will lead to a better outcome rather than a worse one. i didn't realize they were doing that.
Yeah. It it easier to convict on petty crimes than more serious ones. It is also easier to plea bargain out petty crimes rather than more serious ones. A conviction rate standard flips the system upside down - encouraging prosecutors to take cases to trial that she be plea bargained and thus reducing the resources dedicated towards prosecuting more serious offenses.
What does this have to do with her past sexual history though. from what you said the case should've been dismissed without looking at her sexual history, just from looking at the event where the alleged incident took place.
The plural of anecdotes is not data.
unless you don't count her conduct *that day* as history, her behavior prior to the incident in question can and should inform the likelihood that the incident happened without her consent.
that's a very government-like statement. that said, the punter literally wasn't there, so it's objectively true. "even if it happened" it would not be his fault any more than it would be your fault personally. you kind of have to be in the vicinity to commit that particular crime.
hmm, seems we thought about different things when reading the term. i would include both past relationships/behavior and "relations"/behavior earlier that day in the person's "history".
the bills certainly treated him badly. were it just the bills, but no. you pay a lot of time and money to that system as part of the "judicial process". quite a few people dragged his reputation through the mud, though it would be difficult to pin down defamation there it will have an effect.
