Reasonable doubt worked in the age of reason. I dunno what the fuck this is so… there’s always a bit of fuzziness now in court cases.
I mean… insert a couple of were absolutely sure it’s in there doc procedures and I’m happy to say it was me too.
Spell check slam!!!
It is debatable, but in my mind Banksy does strive to bring attention to social issues and political shenanigans. He’s also mocked the art world for highly valuing his works by selling genuine Banksy art in NY for almost nothing.
Granted i’m aware he still panders to the art world so there’s some conflict of interest, but i think he’s made a name for himself and making money from it is not something i’d sneer at.
5 Likes
I am personally fine with the punishment here. Knowingly deface multiple national monuments, get banned from said monuments and have to give back to the community. These are quite literally crimes against nature.
Unfortunately there is of course a dark side to all of this. The original article talks about the threats, doxing, and attempts at vigilante justice. I can’t help but also think there was additional abuse and outrage simply because the offender was female (yay, sexism).
The Reddit hive mind can be a great service and help to people (/r/rbi is a great example of this), but it can also be extremely dangerous.
7 Likes
I don’t usually go ‘Grammar Nazi’, but certain misspellings are just a pet peeve of mine.
Again, that was the gist of my point.
Like him or not, at least there’s a point to what Banksy does… and at least he’s not enough of an asshole to tag anything in a national park.
4 Likes
@popobawa4u, Attorney at Law:
Detective: We think your client did the thing.
Popo: Ridiculous! You have zero evidence that my client did the thing!
Detective: We have photographic documentation of your client doing the thing.
Suspect: I did the thing.
Popo: My client invokes the right to remain silent!
Suspect: No I don’t. I did the thing. I’m a bad person.
Detective: Will you sign a sworn statement to that effect?
Suspect: Sure.
Popo: YOU HAVE NOTHING BUT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND HEARSAY, I DEMAND YOU RELEASE MY CLIENT AT ONCE
22 Likes
Don’t forget entrapment!
7 Likes
In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police, who investigate crime; and the idiots on the Internet, who don’t understand the law. These are their stories.
15 Likes
I got a good laugh out of that
But…but…it’s really important that people a hundred years from now know that I was a selfish asshole who wanted to be remembered in this particular way because I wasn’t famous for doing something worthwhile or valued.
Don’t worry, someone already beat you to burning down the Parthenon for fame/infamy.
2 Likes
Number three was only possible after they were charged, so I’d say that doesn’t count as a basis for charging them. I agree that the first two are sufficient basis for investigation, but it seems that they were just hoping for admission rather than building a solid case.
In contrast, if a bank is robbed, and I admit to it, and people know that I was there - I suspect that they would still try to back up their charges with more evidence, if for no other reason than to avoid wasting time. They would If taking credit for something “good” is insufficient for one to receive reward, then it would seem symmetrical that taking credit for something “bad” would also be insufficient for receiving punishment.
The analogy here would be “@popobawa4u was known to be at the scene during a string of bank robberies and posted on social media about committing said robberies. When the police showed up at his house he admitted to the robberies and had the money on hand. Later he entered a guilty plea to those robberies in court.”
So yeah, I’d say “open and shut case.”
That’s kind of bananas, because there is no motive for her to lie about being the person who did the bad thing. And her admission isn’t the only evidence anyway; as previously noted she is also the only person known to have been at the site of each act of vandalism.
We have plenty of reason to think she did it, zero reason to believe any other person did. “Reasonable doubt” doesn’t come into play if there’s no reasonable basis for doubt.
4 Likes
I wonder about this part:
“Nocket must also make a formal written apology to the National Park Service”
(a) What’s the point of this? I mean, what if, say, the apology isn’t sincere enough? Or the handwriting isn’t neat? Do we crumple it up and make her do it again? Seems awfully grade-schooley.
(b) What she did was wrong, and I’m glad she was caught, and she should be punished. That said, I have serious doubts about the constitutionality of this specific part of the sentence. I mean, we’re compelling expression here. What if she’s legitimately NOT sorry? For example, a nonviolent protestor might not be “sorry” for staging a sit in. It might be perfectly appropriate to punish that person for trespassing, etc.; but do we really want the government in the business of enforcing how people should feel?
It does seem quite unreasonable, and yet there always seem to be people who are only too willing to bend themselves into pretzels to prop up their implausible “what if” arguments. I just don’t get that.
2 Likes
Real life isn’t always like the TV shows and movies. When cops follow the evidence to find a potential perpetrator and that person confesses, they don’t waste time trying to find out if it was actually someone else. Yes, they should make sure they have evidence ready for the DA if there isn’t a guilty plea, but this isn’t the first episode of Castle where the plucky writer thinks there needs to be more to the story (or the screenwriter has twenty more minutes of screen time to fill so the story has to go on longer).
Do you think the police should be spending more time trying to prove that she did it when she already confessed based on what they already had connecting her to the crimes? Do you think other crimes deserve less attention because you want cops to waste time after a case is already closed?
5 Likes
It’s probably a rhetorical habit which afflicts those of us who often perform oral sex on ourselves.
How I think is that ALL evidence is under review. Since it is impossible to ultimately know reality, I continuously test my models of it. Especially by asking questions to challenge anything which I presume that I know. My only certainty is that there is no certainty - only the latest inconclusive evidence.
1 Like
But how do you know that you think that?
As “what you think” is part of reality, and since it is impossible to “ultimately know reality”, can you really be certain that you actually think that “ALL evidence” is actually under your review, or are you actually picking and choosing what you chose to review? 
5 Likes
I agree with that perspective from a philosophical standpoint, but abstract philosophical concepts aren’t a practical method for a justice system that has limited resources and the imperative that justice should be pursued for all victims. The system doesn’t even live up to that practical standard, but even so, it’s impractical not to take an easy win and move on. It creates more injustice if all crimes take too long to investigate because the police try to be more thorough than justice demands. At a certain point, you can question reality and knowledge all you want, but you have to make practical decisions to accept that somethings are close enough to be true for a working model of how to live life, otherwise you’d never eat because you’re not sure food is actually nourishing to your body.
3 Likes
