Interesting Global News
What is global news?
Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media posts
Avoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
- [email protected] - International and local legal news.
- [email protected] - Technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
- [email protected] - Interesting articles, projects, and research that doesn't fit the definition of news.
- [email protected] - News and information from Europe.
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
view the rest of the comments
You can keep convening grand juries against someone for the same event until they agree to indict? That seems dubious. And is especially damning in the context of police that don't get indicted and never go to trial.
Think about it this way. The grand jury is basically taking on the role of a prosecutor for the sole decision of whether or not to indict, after that, the actual prosecutor takes over.
If you are a civillian, and the prosecutor that has jurisdiction refuses to prosecute, say, the murder of your child, you can then wait for the prosecutor to lose office (either by losing an election, or wait for someone else to get appointed, depending on how its selected in your area), then ask the new prosecutor to file the charges, and since murder has no statute of limitations, you can keep trying this until a prosecutor decides to indict.
This is essentially what a grand jury is. They are temporary taking the role of the prosecutor, for one act, and one act only, deciding whether or not to indict.
Right, but that doesn't answer if they convene a grand jury for a specific alleged crime, and the grand jury says "no", can they try again with a new jury? For the same alleged crime? That seems like an obvious flaw in that they can just keep trying until they get an indictment and can proceed. There'd be no point in the grand jury step because it eventually returns an indictment.
Edit: Internet is telling me
Which seems insane.
https://www.arnoldsmithlaw.com/who-decides-whether-or-not-i-will-be-charged-with-a-crime.html
Our legal system seems really bad, folks
I don't think its insane.
If half of a grand jury is enough to acquit, then you are basically doing a coin toss to see if someone like Dylan Roof gets to walk free.
Trials require uanimous jury verdict to make sure the verdict is as correct as they can be
it seems weird that the state can keep trying until they get the answer they want. Why is that protection only available later?
It wouldn't be a coin toss - the odds are heavily slanted in favor of the prosecutor. The defense has no role.
Also does this mean that those times cops didn't get indicted, the state could have tried again?
Oh yes they could.
But remeber how 90% of the cops who murder people never even get an investigation. Yea, they don't give a shit.
Oh, wanna know something funnier.
If Luigi gets a hung jury, its a mistrial, whivh doesn't count against double jeopardy clause, so the prosecution can try again. And each hung jury is also another chance to try again.
Oh even if he gets acquitted on state charges, the federal government can still prosecute on any federal offences he may have committed.
And that hung jury shenaigan still can happen over and over again.
Like 11 says not guilty, 1 says guilty, bam hung jury. That's how it works, like it or not.
(Unrelated, but wanna know more shenanigans? The USCIS can see all arrests, even those not resulting in conviction, and they can see all interactions with the law, even sealed, expunged, or pardoned cases. You heard that right, ALL of them! They can even see any juvenile records with the last 5 years.
Shenanigans... shenanigans...)