I think that's the right video, at least.

@StrixVaria I was just looking for that =p

@murgatroid99 A jury can say "innocent" regardless of the semantics of whether they are determining "validity" or not.

@KevinvanderVelden Beautiful. So, something is okay in the justice system.

@Koviko But saying someone was not guilty of a crime that they actually committed doesn't overturn the law. It just says that they didn't do it

@Koviko yeah, talking about jury nullification can actually be something you can be arrested for

@murgatroid99 It doesn't overturn the law itself, but it does in that particular instance.

@KevinvanderVelden well that's why jury selection exists. I wasn't complaining about jury selection so much as I was about the specific instructions sometimes given against nullification

@KevinvanderVelden well wtf

which it was my understanding was a key and intentional part of the role of a jury

@StrixVaria Yeah, I knew about that.

@Koviko Well, did you listen to the last part of the video?

Juries that are told about jury nullification have a higher probability of acquitting "sympathetic" defendants and convicting "non-sympathetic" defendants regardless of the evidence provided.

That's honestly pretty terrifying.

@Yuuki but not at all surprising

If people are told that they can vote on their feelings, they are more likely to do so

@Yuuki atleast the later half is pretty terrifying, I suppose the first half is also terrifying but in a different way

@AJHenderson Considering the number of fanboys/girls multiple serial killers had and have, the former is pretty terrifying all by itself.

Juries are another of those ideas that work fine, until you add human psychology in to the mix

@Yuuki yes, but that's why juries aren't one person

@AJHenderson the first part is worse because of double jeopardy. The second, at least, can be appealed

@Yuuki I didn't watch the video yet, but I will now. I didn't even think about the fact that the jury most definitely can sentence a person to prison that is actually innocent. I've heard the, "If s/he didn't do this, s/he's surely done X, Y, or Z" argument before. Mostly in movies, but still.

the chances of getting a unanimous jury decision of fan boys of the serial killer is basically non-existant

> Ridiculon - The Binding Of Isaac - Rebirth- OST - 05 The Forgotten (Secret Room).mp3

@Chippies arugh I'm glitched inside a satalite dish and can't get out D:

it is more of an issue in race related things where society is opposed to basic civil rights, but that's honestly a deeper problem than just the courts can deal with

dat filename

@Koviko That said, knowing about nullification can make you ineligible for jury selection, therefore you still doing your civic duty, and not being guilty for not being selected.

Not to mention, the average person doesn't distinguish between reasonable doubt (used in criminal cases) and preponderance of the evidence (used in civil cases).

@murgatroid99 see, I would argue the first is scary because it implies that in many cases, juries may have found that the convictions were not fair

@Frank I did it!

which means we've had laws that aren't fair that nothing was done about

@Frank That's also a scary thought. That your government, the people that request for you to vote every year, would rather you be uneducated about laws.

So, I'm all for jury instructions. Granted, the wording could be a little better.

@djsmiley2k Grats! That's a whole lot of dedication for that.

@Koviko It's technically not a law.

@Frank Actually really enjoyed 99% of it :)

It's a byproduct of logical laws.

@AJHenderson the jury's sympathy for the defendant probably depends more on appearance and gender and such than the crime they are accused of

@Frank Ah, I didn't know that. But I guess if it doesn't need to be spelled out, there's no reason to.

That's the problem

@murgatroid99 But at the same time, it might be the appearance of maybe the arresting officer or something.

@Koviko It's what happens in a society trying to uphold laws in a consistent fashion.

People should be convicted on facts and evidence, not how they make the jury feel

You get rulings that are terribly inconsistent.

@Koviko The video specifically said "sympathetic" vs "non-sympathetic" defendants

@murgatroid99 Being a good lawyer seems (again, in movies) to be based on your ability to invoke an emotional response, though.

@murgatroid99 the facts are not always clear cut. eyewitness testimony has been shown to be highly inaccurate, yet we still rely on it

@murgatroid99 12-robot death panels, go!

@murgatroid99 Still didn't watch it. Will definitely do that, now. lol

@murgatroid99 fair, and note, I'm not opposed to jury instruction, but I think jury instruction should specifically include details about jury nullification and under what conditions it is appropriate (ie, the law is not fair in this case)

@AJHenderson How would you determine "the law is not fair in this case"?

if they are simply supposed to be fact finding automatons, there is no purpose to having a jury of your peers

@AJHenderson the thing is that the people giving those instructions probably think it's never appropriate. So they are, by their own judgement, doing their duty

@AJHenderson Jury instruction specifically point out that the law is the law, and that if the evidence is there, regardless of feelings, they need to convict.

@Frank yeah, and that instruction bothers me deeply

Whether the law is fair or not doesn't matter.

@Yuuki for example, if the defendant got busted for having a little bit of pot and you think marijuana should be legalized

@AJHenderson but without consistent application of laws, we have chaos

@MattGiltaji That usually gets you thrown out at jury selection.

@murgatroid99 If general fairness is considered in every case, we do have consistent application of lw

@Powerlord During the instructions?

Not to mention I don't think very many marijuana possession charges go to jury trial.

@Yuuki prosecution would want to throw you out, but defense would want to keep you

Probably would result in a mistrial right there.

@Powerlord they'd say that the jurist had purjured their self for claiming that they would only convict based on evidence

@AJHenderson "general fairness"? That doesn't sound very concrete

@MattGiltaji I believe that one strike from either side will get you thrown from jury selection.

@Yuuki say for example that a father kills someone while defending his daughter from an attack, but on a technicality it can't qualify as self defense. The law is effectively broken in that case because a situation that wasn't foreseen occurred. Is it fair to convict him on the letter of the law despite the fact that the situation clearly extended in a way the law didn't foresee?

So, if you state that you believe marijuana should be legalized, prosecution will strike you.

Oh, hey. New tier of legendary rarity for D3 going forward.

And there's nothing the defense can do about it.

@Yuuki true, but each side has a limited number of strikes, they can't just toss everyone out

@AJHenderson what techincality?

I'm just making a hypothetical here

@MattGiltaji Limited peremptory strikes. Strikes without cause.

I'm fairly certain "juror believes the law to be wrong" is a cause for striking.

but lets say, for example, that it wasn't self defense because he wasn't the one being attacked

I know that isn't actually the case, but lets say for point of argument, that was the law

@AJHenderson then the law should be changed

@murgatroid99 Accidental death, perhaps.

@Yuuki that seems heavily biased towards the prosecution then

(which would be manslaughter rather than murder)

but you can't go around convicting some people and not others of the same law

@Yuuki I have no idea what's going on, but from the little bit of context in the last few messages I imagine that the issue is that the jurors don't know the details in advance to find issue with the law.

@AJHenderson He will be convicted, go on appeal, and the law will likely be amended in the meantime.

@Frank Stupid.

@StrixVaria How so?

@Frank Wow

It's just another tier with 30% better stats.

There is literally nothing interesting but higher numbers.

@MattGiltaji Well, conviction is heavily biased towards defense in criminal trials (reasonable doubt is an extremely high standard for burden of proof).

Make ancient legendaries do stuff normal legendaries can't do.

Or make them an entirely new set of legendaries.

Anything but just literally the same item +30% numbers.

@StrixVaria It would be a lot nicer if it had a second special

@StrixVaria Some of the stats are better, but there are several that are exempt from being improved.

oh shit, i misjudged calender.. i thought halo master collection was coming out this weekend.. not tomorrow

well then

@Yuuki I guess lucky for the system that most defendants plead out

CHC, CHD, +skill and +elemental are all exempt.

so much for playing through all 4 campaigns in one session T_T

@Yuuki We should switch to the Phoenix Wright model: the prosecution wins by default unless the defense can prove that someone else did it

@Frank None of the ones in that screen shot it seems though.

@James Well, no. It's supposed to demonstrate that Ancient = better.

@Rapitor Oh, btw, you have to download the 3 other blu-rays remember :)

@James already preloaded and ready to start ;)

Most likely all I'm going to do in Season 2 is level a character to 70 and then stop.

@Rapitor Haha, have fun then!!

@murgatroid99 With magic heart lock thingies.

(I haven't played the games so I'm not exactly clear on the terminology)

@Yuuki those weren't even in the first game

@Yuuki except that wouldn't matter. If he was found guilty, even if the law changed, he wouldn't get off unless he was pardoned

Just finished watching the video and reading what everyone's said.

@AJHenderson He will mostly likely be pardoned in that case.

but why should it have to go to that? Or more pointedly, what is the point of a jury of your peers, if not to ensure that the laws are fairly applied

if they aren't supposed to ACT like peers, then there is no reason to have it be peers

@AJHenderson "fair" is open to interpretation

All the original class sets (Inna's, etc.) are getting massive buffs. Again. Hopefully, the Monk gets some love, as we're still way behind other classes.

@AJHenderson The problem is that you're picking a scenario which has inherent emotional bias (Father convicted of murder for defending his daughter? Really?). If you're doing that, you should at least present the opposite case: accused serial killer found innocent despite a large amount of evidence tying him to the murder.

@murgatroid99 which is why it requires a unanimous decision of a group of people from relatively random selection

If it's "unfair" to convict someone because of their background, personal situation, race, gender, etc. should they go free?

Or something like that.

to account for the differences of opinion on "fair"

@Frank They talked about a monk set that sounds pretty neat. Generators do bonus damage, generate dashing strike charges, and dashing strike gets some kind of buff that makes it good for damage in addition to utility.

I'm no good at devil's advocate.

and to hopefully come to an understanding of "fair" that is consistent

with the view of the people

Actually, this is something I don't know: If you are convicted of something and then the law is changed

Do you get out?

Or are you still bad for breaking it while it was law?

@Koviko Nope.

@StrixVaria If they're focusing on a single skill like that, then it's going to be required to get it to play top tier.

@AJHenderson the jury is supposed to decide whether their is reasonable doubt in the evidence

but if that is all, what is the point of being peers?

there isn't one

lawyers are far more qualified to understand what is reasonable doubt

@Frank They pitched that as "one of many" options. I don't know how it's going to play out for monks specifically, but they are still trying to figure out ways to increase build diversity.

Unfortunately, they may be falling into the trap of just changing which is the best build with each patch.

@StrixVaria So if the general populace feels a law is on its way out (eg. marijuana law), I'd say nullification would be justified in that situation.

if the only point of juries is to decide if the facts apply, then I don't want a trial by jury EVER

because it can only work against me

@Koviko I think some laws explicitly nullify existing sentences for crimes they remove

@AJHenderson near as I can tell, the point of juries is to make lawyers take lessons in drama.

@Koviko depends on how the law is changed. The law can be changed to specifically release you, but unless the law specifically releases you, then you are not released

@AJHenderson that would be extremely expensive

same applies if sentancing changes

@murgatroid99 it wouldn't be any more expensive than juries are now

it would just be another legal requirement of practicing law

that sometimes you would have to sit to jury a trial

@AJHenderson you'd have so many lawyers sitting on juries that there would never be any available to try cases

you'd need something like 6 times as many lawyers just to sit on juries

@Koviko interestingly, while I disagree with that law, it isn't one where I would jury nullify if I was on a jury

@murgatroid99 and what's the problem there? ;)

(ok, kidding there)

@AJHenderson then every case would be stuck in limbo forever

nobody would ever go free from being accused of anything

yeah, I know, I was joking on that one

but how many mistrials wouldn't be mistrials?

and you wouldn't need as large of juries

3 would probably be enough

@AJHenderson with 0 trials ever, we'd have 0 mistrials

100%

hell, that's basically how it used to be done

@murgatroid99 That's not how 0 / 0 works.

@AJHenderson and maybe there's a reason why they don't do it that way any more

@AJHenderson well the point of peers was also that you wouldn't be judged by people with rank, they wanted to not be england

@Koviko what's 100% of 0?

juries of your peers was a move away from trial by a panel of judges

@murgatroid99 I don't think that exists.

Or wait, it does

@Koviko are you telling me that 1*0 doesn't exist?

undefined

one times zero

@murgatroid99 1 * 0 is not 100% of zero

@KevinvanderVelden exactly, that's what I'm saying

@Koviko it absolutely is

@Koviko it is too!

that's what 100% means

That is literally exactly what 100% means

the 100% of nothing, is nothing

I thought you were trying to prove the answer was 0

the point of judging by peers is that peers know if it is fair. Justice can't exist without fairness and the problem with a panel of high rank judges handing it down is that they have no idea of the realities of life of the person on trial and how it impacts the fairness or justice of a law

justice isn't following laws to a letter

@Koviko Of 1*0? It is

justice is having fair laws applied fairly

@AJHenderson I disagree with your premise (first sentence)

I'm moving away from that. Murg tricked me by asking a different question.

I said 0 / 0 is not 100%

And then he moved to 1 * 0

The point of judging by peers is to spread the power of judgement, to prevent abuse

@murgatroid99 But not in the interest of fairness?

@murgatroid99 ok, fair answer

I'd say that is fairness.

@Koviko fairness is not well defined

@murgatroid99 Nor is juctice.

@StrixVaria Actually, in Canada, a change in law in your favour will be applied to you, against your favour won't. For instance, if a maximum sentence is reduced, you can benefit from that, but if a minimum sentence is increased, it won't be applied to you.

This is all very twisty.

@Koviko which is why we have specific laws and procedures

we don't tell juries "do justice"

@Koviko sure it is, justice and fair and treating people fairly is justice... see ;)

@MBraedley Again, this is because Canada likes its own citizens.

oh wait

@murgatroid99 Because justice isn't a thing, so we settle for the next best thing: consistency.

So, let's talk about movies.

Anybody see any movies recently?

@Yuuki Lawyer movies?!

@Koviko how do you define "next best" from a thing that isn't real?

Matrix Reloaded was awesome!

@Koviko Well, The Judge was out recently.

@murgatroid99 Justice IS a thing, just an idealistic thing.

I actually liked how it ended.

@Koviko thank you, I was just going to go there ;)

@Koviko Phoenix Wright the movie is great

@Braiam BLASPHEMY!

Interestingly enough, it does have a teensie bit of relevance to what we're currently talking about.

@Koviko It's not a thing that people will agree on

I just saw that movie Nightcrawler. It was very exciting. Not at all what I expected.

@murgatroid99 Correct. The idealistic Founding Fathers concept knew this.

@Koviko Were you expecting a blue-skinned furry humanoid with a devil's tail that could teleport?

Speaking of, I woner if a new country will spawn from America that has new Founding Fathers to point out the flaws of our system and try again.

@Yuuki yeah, marvel is getting real lazy with special effects these days

@Yuuki That was my first thought when I heard the title.

(and the real irony is I first just came in here to ask if anyone was looking forward to WoD)

@AJHenderson WoD?

and never even got around to asking

@Yuuki The new WoW game.

@Koviko people still play WoW? wow

Personally, I'm burnt out on WoW. GW2 is free, fun, and as no gear treadmill, so I'm sticking with that.

Personally, I'm burnt out on MMOs. TF2 is a free fun dress up and dance simulator with an FPS in it sometimes.

I stopped for a while, but have too many friends that still play and warlords actually looks pretty good. They've done a lot to improve on the whole gear treadmill thing too, but I can understand people's objection too

I play Runescape, but people always seem to forget that that actually exists

honestly, if it wasn't for my friends and the fact I'm friends with people that work at bliz, I probably wouldn't be playing still

I'm excited for Overwatch.

Speaking of TF2.

@StrixVaria yeah, looking forward to when that hits early alpha and I can actually try it

@AJHenderson Bragging?

I play... on my 3DS mostly these days.

Red Mom is almost impossible without sound

I just play Clicker Heroes.

@StrixVaria :)

speaking of clicker heroes... wheres today's incremental

I did have to go to a very expensive college to get the connection though

luckily that wasn't the only take away though

awesome... fuckwit

@Rapitor and this is why I say screw both parties

Noooooooooo

@AJHenderson create your own...?

Antigrav tear with azazel is the worst

@Braiam unless we can change the fact that 40% vote republican without looking and 40% vote democrat without looking, I could get the entire 20% that actually think voting my way and it still wouldn't matter

so I tend to vote however I think would be the most disruptive possible

@OrigamiRobot what does that do?

> Earlier this year, he called on Congress to ban the agency's "latest adventure in 'net neutrality' " on grounds that a five-member panel should not decide "how Internet services will be provided to millions of Americans."

No, instead 3 companies should.

'cause that's how it currently works.

@Rapitor Holy shit how can someone be this vapid?

@Powerlord But the American people control those companies because capitali...Sorry, sorry. I couldn't make it through that sentence without feeling an urge to smack some sense into myself.

Also, why are some of the challenges in Isaac easier than the base game?

For instance, the technology one was so easy.

"[Net neutrality] puts the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service, and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities, and higher prices for consumers," Cruz wrote.

mmm...AC: Unity is a ~56 GB download. That's fun.

that's... what

@Rapitor "I don't understand what Net Neutrality is, but damned if I can't make something scary up"

> He urged the Federal Communications Commission to classify broadband Internet as a "telecommunications service" under Title II of the Telecommunications Act.

it already used to be under Title 2 and everything was great back then

The one fair criticism I do see of net neutrality is that government regulation is almost always badly worded and ends up with a fucked up implementation that doesn't match the desired effect

if they just classified it under title 2 again, all the problems would go away

"Don't be dicks" should be the written law, judged and enforceable by me.

@StrixVaria Hopefully they manage to find their way around it.

@AJHenderson Ugh, the straight party vote is awful

Because right now, the Monk's best build requires spamming a mantra every three seconds or less.

pokes chat