Official "Look How Insane and Shitty ALL GOP Officials Are" Thread

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

24 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Do you know what the worst metric for a prosecutor is? Overturned convictions. 

which is more often harder to get than the conviction was. Especially since at a certain point no new evidence or witnesses recanting their testimony may help a person who’s actually innocent. As even the Supreme Court has ruled more than once that innocence is not enough to overturn a conviction. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

which is more often harder to get than the conviction was. Especially since at a certain point no new evidence or witnesses recanting their testimony may help a person who’s actually innocent. As even the Supreme Court has ruled more than once that innocence is not enough to overturn a conviction. 

Acts of prosecutorial misconduct, like failing to turn over evidence, is not a new evidentiary claim and is not subject to restrictions some states impose on introducing new evidence.

[marioandsonic]

11 hours ago, TUFKAK said:

Florida Republicans Pass Bill Allowing Trans Kids to Be Removed From Their Families

NEWREPUBLIC.COM

---

This is just the latest anti-trans bill passed in the state, but it’s among the most dangerous.

 

 

It's only a short time before some politician just flat out says that trans people need to be hunted down and killed.

[Fizzzzle]

Again, district attorneys CAMPAIGN on their conviction rates! Once a DA department decides to take a case to trial (meaning there was theoretically enough evidence present to make a case, ideally), *from that point on* they are trying to convict. 

 

Yes, it looks bad if they have overturned convictions, but that happens so rarely that it isn't worth thinking about.

 

The reason we HAVE defense attorneys is because prosecutors are not impartial seekers of the truth. If what you say is true, we wouldn't need defense attorneys.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

The reason we HAVE defense attorneys is because prosecutors are not impartial seekers of the truth. If what you say is true, we wouldn't need defense attorneys

This tells me all I need to know about your misunderstanding of the words you are typing here, and I’ll just stop responding 😂

[Ghost_MH]

On 4/17/2023 at 11:51 PM, sblfilms said:

That is false. The job of the prosecutor is always to seek justice, even if that means admitting they were wrong. So no, we aren’t saying the same thing and I’m not making it complicated at all.

 

I wish this were true in this country. However, getting a prosecutor to admit they were wrong even in the face of new and good evidence doesn't have the best track record. It's precisely because of how bad less than perfect conviction rates and overturned convictions looks that prosecutors will fight to keep innocent people in prison. I'm not sure I would define that as seeking justice.

 

Then again, how are we defining justice here?

 

Supreme Court Allows Rodney Reed to Keep Up His Fight for DNA Testing

THEINTERCEPT.COM

---

Texas has gone to great lengths to prevent DNA testing of crime scene evidence that Reed says could exonerate him.

 

What are prosecutors fighting for here? Is justice seeking the truth and ensuring innocent people aren't inprisoned or is justice being a legal pendant, even in the face of purposely choosing to murder innocent people?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

I wish this were true in this country. However, getting a prosecutor to admit they were wrong even in the face of new and good evidence doesn't have the best track record. It's precisely because of how bad less than perfect conviction rates and overturned convictions looks that prosecutors will fight to keep innocent people in prison. I'm not sure I would define that as seeking justice.

 

Then again, how are we defining justice here?

 

Supreme Court Allows Rodney Reed to Keep Up His Fight for DNA Testing

THEINTERCEPT.COM

---

Texas has gone to great lengths to prevent DNA testing of crime scene evidence that Reed says could exonerate him.

 

What are prosecutors fighting for here? It's justice seeking the truth and ensuring innocent people aren't inprisoned or is justice being a legal pendant, even in the face of purposely choosing to murder innocent people?

The Reed case is not an example of having evidence that exonerates a person and suppressing it. It is a disagreement over two things, first whether or not the evidence would likely change the outcome of the trial, which is the standard for introducing new evidence not admitted during the trial, and the second is whether or not the challenge was brought in time.
 

On the first point, one can disagree on whether or not that should be the standard, but it is the standard. I personally think it is good because we can’t be overturning convictions all the time simply because there is some new evidence brought forward.

 

On the second point, I think capital cases should be completely free of SOL issues both in prosecution and in appeals. Too much at stake to say “sorry, been too long”.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 minute ago, Ghost_MH said:

It's precisely because of how bad less than perfect conviction rates and overturned convictions looks that prosecutors will fight to keep innocent people in prison.

it's also a significant reason why prosecutors are wary to go against relatively wealthy or powerful people because they know they can fight the charges unless the crime is particularly egregious or the evidence is an absolute slam-dunk. And even then it can be iffy!

 

but a DA who can railroad some poor Black 23 year old man with an underpaid and overworked public defender no problem it's what they do all the time

[Guest]

I also want to bring up something that I think people have all wrong, and I’ve seen it mentioned a few times in this thread.

 

There is often a sense in the society that public defenders are lesser talents than private attorneys. I would argue on balance the exact opposite is true. Public defenders are often much more experienced and skilled in the courtroom than their average private attorney peers.

 

The much larger issue of public defenders is the financial resources for investigations (things like finding alternate suspects), third party evidence testing, and the hiring of expert witnesses. Those who can afford private attorneys also tend to be able to drop substantial sums on these sorts of things which are hugely important in overcoming the jury’s bias against criminal defendants.

 

Hug your public defenders, they are doing a mostly thankless job in the toughest possible way.

[CitizenVectron]

12 hours ago, TUFKAK said:

Florida Republicans Pass Bill Allowing Trans Kids to Be Removed From Their Families

NEWREPUBLIC.COM

---

This is just the latest anti-trans bill passed in the state, but it’s among the most dangerous.

 

 

I have no doubt this is ending in a call for genocide for trans people. 

[Ghost_MH]

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

On the second point, I think capital cases should be completely free of SOL issues both in prosecution and in appeals. Too much at stake to say “sorry, been too long”.

 

Absolutely agree, but that's not really stopping Texas here. This is why I question the idea that a prosecutor's job is to seek justice. I'd argue their job is too win cases and that, as a people, is how we chose to judge a person's value when election day rolls around.

 

In an ideal world, maybe seeking justice is the job, but we don't live in an ideal world and the job has really been distilled down to "win cases". Does winning usually mean going after cases of pretty obvious guilt? Sure, but there have been way too many innocent people put in jail and too many cases of prosecutors looking to keep those people in jail, less their chances for higher office or reelection be hurt.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

22 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I also want to bring up something that I think people have all wrong, and I’ve seen it mentioned a few times in this thread.

 

There is often a sense in the society that public defenders are lesser talents than private attorneys. I would argue on balance the exact opposite is true. Public defenders are often much more experienced and skilled in the courtroom than their average private attorney peers.

 

The much larger issue of public defenders is the financial resources for investigations (things like finding alternate suspects), third party evidence testing, and the hiring of expert witnesses. Those who can afford private attorneys also tend to be able to drop substantial sums on these sorts of things which are hugely important in overcoming the jury’s bias against criminal defendants.

 

Hug your public defenders, they are doing a mostly thankless job in the toughest possible way.

they get shit because they're public servants like teachers and we (as a society) fucking hate people like that, despite the good work they do, fighting the grinding death machine of the American "justice" system

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

Absolutely agree, but that's not really stopping Texas here. This is why I question the idea that a prosecutor's job is to seek justice. I'd argue their job is too win cases and that, as a people, is how we chose to judge a person's value when election day rolls around.

Following the law is seeking justice, and reasonable people can disagree on what the law should be!

 

8 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

In an ideal world, maybe seeking justice is the job, but we don't live in an ideal world and the job has really been distilled down to "win cases". Does winning usually mean going after cases of pretty obvious guilt? Sure, but there have been way too many innocent people put in jail and too many cases of prosecutors looking to keep those people in jail, less their chances for higher office or reelection be hurt.

 

One is too many, but it really is not common in the slightest to find cases where the innocence of the person is clear post-conviction. Most cases where a case is overturned are not even ones where an actual innocence claim is made! Vast majority is stuff like ineffective assistance or various sorts of prosecutorial misconduct.

Prosecutors defend convictions mostly for the same reason the original charges were brought: they believe in the evidence, the jury system, and the outcome. Maybe their faith is misplaced, but the underlying assumption that they don’t really believe in the guilt of the person and are simply just in “must convict” mode is unfounded.

[Ghost_MH]

35 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Maybe their faith is misplaced, but the underlying assumption that they don’t really believe in the guilt of the person and are simply just in “must convict” mode is unfounded.

 

This is where we really disagree then. When people in power are incentivized to keep their winning percentage as high as possible or risk losing their position in society, I don't understand how we wouldn't come to a situation where less than just decisions are made in the name of expedience and racking up another win. However, that could just be me being more of a pessimist here. I'm just wary of most people that willingly put themselves in the public eye.

[Fizzzzle]

All I'll say is this: If prosecutors are these impartial arbiters of justice, why do we bother with judges and juries?

 

... because prosecutors are NOT impartial arbiters of justice. They accept a case and from that point forward are arguing for the state against the defendant. That is what they're paid to do. They are not judges, they are not detectives. It's not their job to find truth, it is their job to prosecute once a case comes across their desk. Again, the reason why most district attorneys campaign on their conviction rates. "Once I've accepted a case, I've already won" is the biggest selling point they have.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

33 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I also want to bring up something that I think people have all wrong, and I’ve seen it mentioned a few times in this thread.

 

There is often a sense in the society that public defenders are lesser talents than private attorneys. I would argue on balance the exact opposite is true. Public defenders are often much more experienced and skilled in the courtroom than their average private attorney peers.

 

The much larger issue of public defenders is the financial resources for investigations (things like finding alternate suspects), third party evidence testing, and the hiring of expert witnesses. Those who can afford private attorneys also tend to be able to drop substantial sums on these sorts of things which are hugely important in overcoming the jury’s bias against criminal defendants.

 

Hug your public defenders, they are doing a mostly thankless job in the toughest possible way.

Time as a resource is extremely scarce too. They could solve it with less case loads or hiring more attorneys, but then that leads into your point that they don’t have the financial resources too. 
 

and I’m sure underfunded and understaffed public defenders isn’t an accident either. Feature, not a bug. 

[Firewithin]

1 hour ago, marioandsonic said:

 

It's only a short time before some politician just flat out says that trans people need to be hunted down and killed.

i forget which shithole state it was but this was literally said only a few weeks ago i believe 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

25 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

All I'll say is this: If prosecutors are these impartial arbiters of justice, why do we bother with judges and juries?

 

... because prosecutors are NOT impartial arbiters of justice. They accept a case and from that point forward are arguing for the state against the defendant. That is what they're paid to do. They are not judges, they are not detectives. It's not their job to find truth, it is their job to prosecute once a case comes across their desk. Again, the reason why most district attorneys campaign on their conviction rates. "Once I've accepted a case, I've already won" is the biggest selling point they have.

Even in inquisitorial judicial systems where a judge tries to be impartial and find the “truth” you still need lawyers 

[CitizenVectron]

Stephen Miller Is Taking Legal Action Against the M&M Company

WWW.ROLLINGSTONE.COM

---

The former Trump official is apparently furious about the candy's maker's diversity efforts, and he's taking it up with the federal government

 

[TUFKAK]

Lolol

[Spork3245]

12 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Stephen Miller Is Taking Legal Action Against the M&M Company

WWW.ROLLINGSTONE.COM

---

The former Trump official is apparently furious about the candy's maker's diversity efforts, and he's taking it up with the federal government

 

Did he get a package with too many brown m&ms?

[5timechamp]

 

They speak of these things as if theyre the most common sense ideas and the worst part about it theres a chunk of people ready to give her a standing ovation

 

Montana GOP lawmaker just said she preferred her daughter commit suicide than transition

M.DAILYKOS.COM

---

I need to introduce you to a horrible human being. Republican “pro-life” Rep. Kerri Seekins-Crowe, the sponsor of the anti-trans bill in the Montana legislature, just announced to the world that she’d...

 

[Jason]

2 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

Did he get a package with too many brown m&ms?

 

He's probably pissed every last M&M is colored and that there's no white ones.

[stepee]

It’s pretty gross he’s going after companies for hiring too diverse now. This isn’t about the advertising, he’s trying to force them to hire majority white.

[Jason]

3 minutes ago, stepee said:

It’s pretty gross he’s going after companies for hiring too diverse now. This isn’t about the advertising, he’s trying to force them to hire majority white.

[Kamusha]

On 4/20/2023 at 4:31 PM, CitizenVectron said:

 

I have no doubt this is ending in a call for genocide for trans people. 

The genocide is already happening. Genocide is a multi step process with the goal of erasing a group of people or a culture. It is not an event. The steps don’t have to happen in order, but typically it’s all builds upon each other until it leads to extermination in the worse of cases.

 

Holocaust Memorial Day Trust | The ten stages of genocide

WWW.HMD.ORG.UK

---

Genocide never just happens. There is always a set of circumstances which occur or which are created to build the climate in which genocide can...

 

Quote

The stages are:

1. Classification – The differences between people are not respected. There’s a division of ‘us’ and ‘them’ which can be carried out using stereotypes, or excluding people who are perceived to be different.
2. Symbolisation – This is a visual manifestation of hatred. Jews in Nazi Europe were forced to wear yellow stars to show that they were ‘different’.
3. Discrimination – The dominant group denies civil rights or even citizenship to identified groups. The 1935 Nuremberg Laws stripped Jews of their German citizenship, made it illegal for them to do many jobs or to marry German non-Jews.
4. Dehumanisation – Those perceived as ‘different’ are treated with no form of human rights or personal dignity. During the Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, Tutsis were referred to as ‘cockroaches’; the Nazis referred to Jews as ‘vermin’.
5. Organisation – Genocides are always planned. Regimes of hatred often train those who go on to carry out the destruction of a people.
6. Polarisation – Propaganda begins to be spread by hate groups. The Nazis used the newspaper Der Stürmer to spread and incite messages of hate about Jewish people.
7. Preparation – Perpetrators plan the genocide. They often use euphemisms such as the Nazis’ phrase ‘The Final Solution’ to cloak their intentions. They create fear of the victim group, building up armies and weapons.
8. Persecution – Victims are identified because of their ethnicity or religion and death lists are drawn up. People are sometimes segregated into ghettos, deported or starved and property is often expropriated. Genocidal massacres begin.
9. Extermination – The hate group murders their identified victims in a deliberate and systematic campaign of violence. Millions of lives have been destroyed or changed beyond recognition through genocide.
10. Denial – The perpetrators or later generations deny the existence of any crime.

If you can see the parallels we are already multiple steps in. But don’t just  take my word for it. Even international organizations that dedicated themselves to studying and preventing genocide have warned about what is happening to trans people in America.

 

Statement on the Genocidal Nature of the Gender Critical Movement’s Ideology and Practice

WWW.LEMKININSTITUTE.COM

---

November 29, 2022  The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention voices its concern over the growing number of laws introduced in the United States that target...

 

[Spork3245]

I didn’t know where to put this, Arnold is great: 

 

[CastletonSnob]

Texas bills would undermine anti-SLAPP law, harm journalists

WWW.RCFP.ORG

---

The legislation would make it easier to force journalists, news outlets, and other outspoken citizens into expensive, baseless legal proceedings.

 

[CastletonSnob]

Montana GOP Lawmaker Suggested She'd Prefer Her Daughter Die By Suicide Than Transition

WWW.ADVOCATE.COM

---

A clip of her comments has gone viral.

 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Republicans are fucking evil.

[Ominous]

2 hours ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Republicans are fucking evil.

[Fizzzzle]

10 hours ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Republicans are fucking evil.

your mom is evil

 

 

 

(just kidding, I'm sure she probably is mostly a good person)

[CastletonSnob]

A top GOP lawyer wants to crack down on the college vote. States already are. - Kansas Reflector

KANSASREFLECTOR.COM

---

A top Republican election lawyer recently caused a stir when she told GOP donors that the party should work to make it harder for college students to vote in key states.

 

[CastletonSnob]

Texas House advances bill to eliminate Harris County election chief p…

WWW.TEXASTRIBUNE.ORG

---

The new law would force the county to move election duties under its clerk and tax assessor-collector, in reaction to what critics call a continued pattern of election problems.

 

[chakoo]

The Next Front in the GOP’s War on Women: No-Fault Divorce

WWW.ROLLINGSTONE.COM

---

Steven Crowder is part of a growing right-wing chorus calling for an end to modern divorce laws.

 

Like we needed more proof that the the far right hates women.