This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The Constitution itself is quite brief. The hundreds of cases of binding precedent about it, not so much.
One simple example is that the right to a speedy trial is held by the defendant, not the state.
Another is that the defendant is entitled to all relevant information the state has (this is called Brady generally) and adequate time to review it. In most cases, adequate time is determined by defense counsel (rare exceptions are made such as in the Trump NY case, and when defense appears to be delaying intentionally).
In the state I reside, the process you describe wherein everything is taking 1 or 2 days is a condensed version of what currently takes somewhere between 2 and 30 days. No defense lawyer would ever agree to this mini-jury approving an actual guilty, so you are actually complicating the processes known as information (mini pre-trial before a judge) and indictment (mini pre-trial before a grand jury).
Defense is always going to want the full discovery and ability for a full trial. They want to strike jurors who have been robbed in a robbery case (another constitutional case ruling), racists who hate all , etc.
Most defendants are guilty. The Constitution has a presumption of innocence. The interplay of these two is deeply ingrained in the system and would require more than laws to change.
Thanks for the explanation. Do cases have to percolate up to the SCOTUS for them to overturn the previous ruling, or does any of of the federal branches have the power to launch the review of existing cases?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link