• librechad@lemm.ee
    ·
    1 year ago

    I understand your perspective. My intention wasn't to argue that the justice system is infallible. Indeed, history has shown that both wrongful convictions and acquittals can happen. What I meant to highlight was that, given the evidence presented during the trial and the way the law is structured in Wisconsin, the jury arrived at that particular verdict. It's crucial to differentiate between presenting a legal outcome and endorsing the inherent perfection of the system.

        • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Not a man (and neither is the bot you're feeding our replies into)

          Obviously we already know that the jury didn't convict. That's one of the main things we're criticizing. Pointing out that they didn't convict as an argument to support them not convicting is the definition of circular reasoning.

          Find a smarter bot.

        • Egon
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          deleted by creator

    • Egon
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      deleted by creator

    • UnicodeHamSic [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is it your honest opinion that the jurors sat down with grpah paper, checked to make sure they understood the laws and then did thr math to arrive at the final conclusion?

    • Egon
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      deleted by creator

      • TreadOnMe [none/use name]
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Also, chatbots are horrible at 'the law'. They still don't know how to judge and rank legal citations properly and likely never will.