News Stories

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

I have to say, this is exactly why I never liked jury trials.

That wasn't a trial by a "jury of peers" it was a trial by a jury of ... well, I'll try to be civil. A jury trial assumes a well-educated population... which we no longer have in this post-industrial reality.

[Jmac]

Found out awhile ago that Michael Clarke Duncan passed. RIP

[0utf0xZer0]

Man shot dead during Quebec separatist leader's election victory speech.

Going to be interesting to see what the police figure out... violence over the Quebec issue isn't unheard of in Canada but killings are pretty rare occurrences.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

Man shot dead during Quebec separatist leader's election victory speech.

Going to be interesting to see what the police figure out... violence over the Quebec issue isn't unheard of in Canada but killings are pretty rare occurrences.

I might be mistaken but, I think than the last time than the ''Québec issue''endded deadly was at the October crisis ...

As the election itself, the result could had been worse. The PQ will have to face a strong opposition even if the PLQ'S leader wasn't re-elected so it isn't much likely than they will do much damage.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

Man shot dead during Quebec separatist leader's election victory speech.

Going to be interesting to see what the police figure out... violence over the Quebec issue isn't unheard of in Canada but killings are pretty rare occurrences.

Remind me not to visit Canada next time. I thought the hockey riots are the last we see of violence amongst the friendly Canucks.

[ganbaru]

We aren't the US be we still have ''domestical'' murders, gang crime, manifestation turning riots...

[Zakoo]

As they say

Canada could have had french gastronomy, english style and US technology, they ended with French technology, US style and UK gastronomy.

Poor them.

[ganbaru]

French gastronomy, while great, is over-evaluated while the UK one is improving so it isn't that bad, plus it isn't as if the situation was equal in every province...

[Frenchie]

UK gastronomy... improving?

[Zakoo]

Jelly will always be jelly, maybe they put pepper on now?

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Vexx

That wasn't a trial by a "jury of peers" it was a trial by a jury of ... well, I'll try to be civil. A jury trial assumes a well-educated population... which we no longer have in this post-industrial reality.

Disagree. If the law is too complex to be understood by the common man, then the law should be changed so that it can be easily understood.

Don't forget, Patent law in the US is already murky. The Jury's role is not to determine if the law is just or not (even though Jury Nullification is a thing), it's role is simply to determine if the parties in a case have or have not broken the law.

I think that compared to the alternatives Jury Trial is a fine system. It is far less prone to corruption, and it puts the law ultimately in the hands of the people, and not unelected Judges.

Ultimately, the problem here was not the Jury. The problem is US patent law. The law should be changed and clarified. But it is not the role of the Jury to change that law.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Frenchie

UK gastronomy... improving?

Think about the impact of immigartion and the increasing of the choice of ingredients ...

As for the french gastronomy, what made it's reputation was the diplomatic and royal ''meal'', ment to impress more than to represent the reality.

[aohige]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

We aren't the US be we still have ''domestical'' murders, gang crime, manifestation turning riots...

Sure, of course, just WHOLE HELL OF A LOT LESS OF IT PER POPULATION than US.

Silly Canadians, trying to make themselves look naughty. Ain't foolin' no one bro!

*chunks DVD copies of Canadian Bacon at all the canucks 'round here*

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Disagree. If the law is too complex to be understood by the common man, then the law should be changed so that it can be easily understood.

Don't forget, Patent law in the US is already murky. The Jury's role is not to determine if the law is just or not (even though Jury Nullification is a thing), it's role is simply to determine if the parties in a case have or have not broken the law.

I think that compared to the alternatives Jury Trial is a fine system. It is far less prone to corruption, and it puts the law ultimately in the hands of the people, and not unelected Judges.

Ultimately, the problem here was not the Jury. The problem is US patent law. The law should be changed and clarified. But it is not the role of the Jury to change that law.

Heh! I think you and I just said the same thing. There isn't a jury pool adept enough to engage the laws as they currently are, especially in regard to copyright, trademark, or patent. Hell, our US patent office isn't adept enough to know when they're issuing an idiotic patent or one that has scads of prior art. The laws are far too complex.

OTOH... in the US, I'll assert that Joe Public jury pool is not doing well in terms of basic education either. I've been in enough pools to watch the process. On the odd chance they get someone with a clue, both sides are often culling them out in selection and the judge doesn't call bullshit (as he is allowed to).

[GDB]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Disagree. If the law is too complex to be understood by the common man, then the law should be changed so that it can be easily understood.

You realize 98% of politicians are lawyers, right? What use would lawyers be if the law were simple enough for everyone to understand? And how would you even go about making laws understandable by idiots who drop out of high school (or worse), don't continue an education, and have no marketable skills?

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by aohige

Sure, of course, just WHOLE HELL OF A LOT LESS OF IT PER POPULATION than US.

Just don't sait it to our current prime minister with his archaic view on the subject.

BTW, you know than your sentence would be right in a discution about crime or gun ownship .

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Heh! I think you and I just said the same thing. There isn't a jury pool adept enough to engage the laws as they currently are, especially in regard to copyright, trademark, or patent. Hell, our US patent office isn't adept enough to know when they're issuing an idiotic patent or one that has scads of prior art. The laws are far too complex.

OTOH... in the US, I'll assert that Joe Public jury pool is not doing well in terms of basic education either. I've been in enough pools to watch the process. On the odd chance they get someone with a clue, both sides are often culling them out in selection and the judge doesn't call bullshit (as he is allowed to).

The difference is that you put a bit more blame on the members of the public, IE they have to better education. Obviously more education is always great, but I don't think that's the main problem in this case. The Jury system is sound, here the problem is the law, which is to complicated for it's own good. The jurists are not at fault, nor are they too uneducated or ignorant to try this case. The job of the lawyers and judges in such a trial is to help the juries understand the case. Theoretically no prior knowledge on the part of the Jury should be required. It's supposed to be "idiot proof".

Originally Posted by GDB

You realize 98% of politicians are lawyers, right? What use would lawyers be if the law were simple enough for everyone to understand? And how would you even go about making laws understandable by idiots who drop out of high school (or worse), don't continue an education, and have no marketable skills?

The reason why politicians should be lawyers is that it's relatively easy to write laws that are hard to understand. It's much more difficult to write laws that are elegant and simple.

In terms of a trial, while the law should be easy to understand, it can't be expected that members of the public (who make the jury, defendants and litigants) to be familiar with every single law. That is why lawyers are needed. However, when the time comes to explain the ins and outs of the case to all the public involved, the law should ultimately simple, logical and straightforward to execute. When it becomes so complex and ambiguous, that's a failure of the law makers to write good laws.

Also, it's important to note that Juries operate as "finders of fact". They simply evaluate if a defendant has broken the law as it has been told to them by the judge, based on the facts and testimony provided to them by the prosecution and defence. It's not to make sense of loopholes and counter-loopholes, it's more to think "is this guy lying, is this man guilty, whose version of events makes more sense?". So long as the law is drafted in a way that is readily understood by members of the public, the system works.

It's only when the law is extremely ambiguous, as it is with intellectual property today, that jury trials fail to function properly. For the system to work, the case really needs to go to the Supreme Court, and the law needs to be untangled and set straight. Most other parts of the common law system are perfectly fine, intellectual property laws are the only particularly bad blemish, on what is otherwise a fine system.

I agree that this was the wrong verdict, but the jury was not at fault. If you want to blame someone, blame Washington. They're the ones that have:
a) failed to regulate the patent office. That the patent office permits so many bad patents is the whole problem.
b) failed to bring copyright and patent law into the 20th century.

The jury was simply following the law. That the law is rotten is not their fault. It's not that they were too stupid or uninformed to understand it. And the law is supposed to be "idiot-proof" anyway.

[Xellos-_^]

While the idea of a black boys school might sound counterintuitive given the efforts of past generations to desegregate public schools, it's not about racial segregation, school organizers said.

It's about recognizing that the status quo isn't working and identifying the specific needs of African American young men. Not all teachers are prepared to deal with those needs, said Derrick Bulles, of the Bay Area 100 Black Men.

Too often, African American boys get marginalized; teachers don't understand them or fear them, Bulles said.

At 100 Black Men Community School, most of the instructors, administrators and board members are black males.

"We don't have that problem," he said. "They're our boys. We are best able to manage that."

http://www.sfgate.com/education/arti...ys-3840007.php

interesting idea.

[Ithekro]

Self segrigation in order to ensure better treatment than presently possible in unified school districts.

[Vexx]

They've done with in some public schools with girls to keep jackass boys from crushing their self-esteem out of the starting gate. I can't say I'm opposed to the idea but wow, its complicated as to whether it helps or hurts. So easily drifts into "segregation->second-rate resources"...