And @OrinKerr handily boils down why I don't think a subjective intent requirement will stymie women's safety:pic.twitter.com/3V7bdYg8Nx
-
@bergmayer than anything to do with enforcement in the real world, or changing how juries actually operate.
@bergmayer Apply any test and I think the jury would have done the exact same analysis on the exact same evidence and come out with guilty
-
-
@bergmayer (in the Elonis case)Merci. Twitter en tiendra compte pour améliorer votre fil. SupprimerSupprimer
-
-
-
@sarahjeong yeah. like I said I think the intent std does *some* work but lots of weird thinking about how juries work going on in this case -
@sarahjeong Like, the *purpose* of the jury is exactly to decide what the "truth" is about ultimately unknowable things like "intent" -
@bergmayer Lot of layers of "know" here too-- like we're speculating right now on how juries operate but really we don't know that, -
@bergmayer the intent requirement includes whether or not the speaker knew certain things -
@bergmayer including whether what he said was a true threat, which just turns into a recursive analysis-- not sure why Breyer doesn't notice -
@bergmayer So the jury is trying to know something what the speaker knew, and whether he knew something that has knowledge in its definition -
@sarahjeong@sarahjeong yeah it's always weird when "intent" becomes "Did I intend to break the law" for exactly that reason -
@sarahjeong my theory is that criminal law is an irredeemably flawed but necessary process so we round up a jury and go "You figure it out" - 1 réponse de plus
Nouvelle conversation -
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.