Comments by "LoneTech" (@0LoneTech) on "Case Adjourned When Jurors Can't Be Found Who Are Willing to Convict" video.

  1. Absolutely. They've established the fine is less punitive than the process of getting it applied. This isn't justice.
    14
  2. ​​ @BitcoinMotorist  Perhaps because they subscribe to the notion that merely knowing nullification is an option means you're biased against law? Personally I consider that offensive, biasing jurors towards lack of education and therefore both gullibility and prejudice. That's not the route to informed decisions.
    12
  3. Don't use coded language. The statement is simple: There can be no guilt, because this law is unjust. "Insufficient proof" would be sending the message to harass the accused harder, not to stop. Of course, not every case will be as clear as this; sometimes the law has a sound purpose but fails to account for humane priorities. This doesn't seem like one of those to me.
    3
  4. I hear this politician's version of "welcome and safe" is "go away, you're not allowed to exist in public". How much government resources are they spending on this again?
    1
  5. ​ @professorhaystacks6606  One apparent problem is the selection isn't selecting for impartiality. In the specific case of "death qualifying", you induce bias toward "I want to take part in legally killing someone". How impartial or even legal is intent to end someone's life, without even an idea of who?
    1