u/RubberDuckieMidrange

Talking about the ideal solution, when you don't know this woman's financial situation, or really any details at all is being a bitch.

It's fine, we all have bad takes sometimes. No judgement on this. But please try to consider it from the position of a woman who may not have had this option. She is separated from her husband (for less than a month) who either can't be trusted with the children, or just refused to take them. Because after the accident he did indeed take them. Sounds like a dickhead making life as difficult as possible for the mother of his children to me.

Yeah and I guess she could also choose not to pay rent. /s

You don't know her situation, you don't know how necessary this paycheck was. I don't know how arresting her makes this right. She didn't neglect her children, she left them for 5 days for a work trip. It's not ideal, but it's not criminal.

You've invented a lovely scenario there, but no he's not accused of impeding an ambulance.

There is a middle ground btw. You can respond to emergencies and not terrorise people who clearly aren't holding weapons....

Hazing. A deliberate action, done to another person, vs Bike traffic accidents. Yep I totally see how these are identical things.

It's not like the pledges to Frats represent a minority of University students. Or that their deaths come about from a deliberate attempt to harm them. Or that hazing is a criminal action in the first place (in 44 states) unlike riding a bike. You definitely aren't making a false equivalence here.

/s

That is.... a take.

Your cognitive dissonance is honestly fascinating. You engage in nothing but ad hominem attacks and then immediately play victim when an attempt to debate you in good faith gets met with MORE ad hominem attacks and in frustration TepidTraveller stoops to your level. Sexual violence against men is under-reported. Yes. So is sexual violence against women by the way. Most rape is still committed by men. That's a statistic, not an opinion. Your bullshit is name calling opinion based trash.

Deaf. AND. Blind. Guy is a fucking embarrassment.

The difference is I didn't get butthurt and go for your throat. I've done nothing but be as cordial as you don't deserve. And again, I know you are having trouble here, but I'm not trying to own you dude.

Ok, Viscerally this doesn't feel bad to hear. And I can see where it would appeal to a sense of vindication to have it ruled in such a way. But lets just take a second to put the facts in place:

The ruling is against the university of Maryland itself, not the false accuser.
The university was made aware of the allegations against the young man, and used it's Title IX process to clear him.
The university did not engage itself in slander of the young man during this time.
The university is alleged to have failed to protect him from the activism of other students which resulted in harassment.

You know what particularly relevant part of that I'm hearing? That the University itself is what cleared him of the accusations through investigation and Title IX. They are not responsible for the expressions of their students, and attempts to repress such would be considered pretty imposing, by the same people who are now decrying the investigation into the Cornell 7. Manosphere conservatives, (And Presidents) who think a rape conviction is ruining a young man's life, and not, as they should, that a rape conviction is taking a predator off the street.

(Side note, can you imagine being the Lawyer defending Trump in the deposition where he mistook a picture of his victim, for a picture of his ex-wife?)

The article goes on to point out how "relevant this is in the context of the Cornell 7" who "were punished by the university in various capacities, with the harshest punishment including expulsion". What it fails to point out, is that the university of Cornell did it's own title IX proceedings and found enough evidence to support the claims of sexual violence that it punished all those involved in the incident, but also didn't forward all the evidence to the police. I do think that Cornell acted poorly. I think it was overly willing to avoid serious consequences for the men who it found likely participated in sexual violence.

Everything you are taught in school, that you think "I'll never use this again in my life" might be true.

But what that argument misses is that each one of those lessons was a chance for you to find something you were good at, or enjoyed, to make a career of it.

Yes, a average person probably doesn't need algebra to do the weekly shopping. But anyone who works in a medium where they need to predict the effects changes they make have on the outcome, uses algebra daily.

Classical studies is interesting, and fun to learn, but I don't use it in my daily life. A Greek/Roman historian on the other hand...

The alternative is worse. Have you ever seen a job you thought looked fun to do, only to wonder how those doing that job ever got started? They get started by getting a taste in classes, they think will never amount to much. But then they find a way to make it a career.

All sorts of fun bits in that paper. This line from the abstract is also fun, "persons found guilty are more likely to be released without ever having been confined than persons acquitted by reason of insanity."

Clancy's own defense team are asking for a prolonged stay in institutionalization. And the experts who have weighed in on this (and the papers looking at past cases) would suggest that while it's POSSIBLE that after a year they decide to release here, it's not realistic, and that she may end up spending the rest of her life institutionalized.

My thoughts on this is that the 1 juror who voted against NGRI probably did her a massive favor.

Prosecution needs to decide if an 11-1 vote against them is worth retrying. The expense to the public alone will be scrutinized. Given that the biggest outlier in the case is the Juror who held out against NGRI, a retrial with the same facts probably results in a NGRI finding. This takes years to do, and hurts the office of the prosecution every time it's brought up in the media, politically. They are HEAVILY incentivized to take one of the other 2 options available to them. ( Drop charges, or come to a plea deal) Now I don't see them dropping the charges any time soon. But a plea deal has to start from the position that if the defense don't like it, they can probably force a trial, and get a NGRI plea that way. That's what the 11-1 vote kinda demonstrates. But that's no guarantee so the prosecution do have some leverage, I'd say about 8.25% off the top of my head. Which means any deal will likely be more lenient than a NGRI finding in the first trial would have been.

"Just because the "average" is longer, doesnt mean that all cases end in a longer stay. There's a reason its the "average""

What value does this have? She didn't get a verdict, We HAVE to base the probable outcomes on the history of similar outcomes. And if she had been found guilty, According to that same Study, "persons found guilty are more likely to be released without ever having been confined than persons acquitted by reason of insanity."

And yes, weirdly in a case with postpartum psychosis, there is activism about improving the mental health of new mothers. In the same way that in cases of Drug-trafficking there is often a push for awareness of the dangers of taking drugs. This is completely normal. You know how biased the jury was to finding her NGRI? 11 to 1.

On average, NGRI pleas result in LONGER stays in custody than Guilty findings do.

~https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263916473\_Punishment\_or\_treatment\_-\_Comparing\_the\_lengths\_of\_confinement\_of\_successful\_and\_unsuccessful\_insanity\_defendants\~

Also it's a hell of a take to see 11 jurors come to a finding about a case and think, yeah the next jury will be radically different. Fact is the next jury is more likely to be 12-0 for NGRI than 12-0 for a guilty finding.

Some of the new stuff is nuts.... Still a work in progress but....

https://preview.redd.it/hg51ch12xhrh1.png?width=1820&format=png&auto=webp&s=44c579059c76bf1e380c5b999b12a2f8234505cb

I'm familiar with the excuses used to pretend that landlords are doing a service. But the fact is, if housing couldn't be used to make a profit, the price drive on housing being bought to Rent out, would be gone. Prices of homes is defined in part by the fake demand these landlords produce. Yes, it's tough for new families to afford homes. But it's tough because a LARGE AMOUNT are being bought specifically to be rented out. Do you know the percentage of homes in the US bought last year for renting? Between 25% and 33% depending on the quarter. You really think that's not having an effect on housing prices? Are you really that oblivious?

Your business model on the whole thing is, You took out a loan, you rent out the home, and you charge a little more than the loan to rent it from you, in the end you end up with a paid off ASSET and they are still renting from the next home they need. Cut you out, and the family that would have the home simply owes the bank the price of the loan without your little cut. And once the loan in paid off, they have an ASSET. You want your system to be ethical? Once your renter leaves, you sign over the percentage of the loan they paid off for you in equity on the final ASSET. You'll still get your little bit more in your pocket so not exactly completely ethical still.

The argument you want to ignore here is that Housing is like food. You can't exactly go without it. Imagine someone made it their job to charge you a fee. And all that hypothetical person does, is hand you stuff from the shelves at the grocery store JUST before you would help yourself. That is the position you are occupying in the housing market. Except your position is even worse, because you are throwing in your groceries to their bill and walking away with them at the end.

https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/claims-of-housing-oversupply-are-misleading/

The US Has a deficit of housing in the region of 3-7 million housing units depending on the report you read. Go fuck yourself with your "They should just buy a house" bullshit.

You sell the house, all other parasites hoarding more houses than they use sell the house, the prices of houses come down to the point that working families can afford them.

You aren't as delusional as the guy above, but you are still delusional to think there is an ethical way to be a middleman in providing a service people can't choose not to engage in.

Actually Israel does have an unfortunate association with paedophiles fleeing prosecution to seek sanctuary there on the basis that all people of Jewish heritage have a right to sanctuary in Israel. I suspect it's secondary to how young it is as a nation and how the vast majority of Israeli citizens had to migrate to the region following it's founding.

Interesting point, Ireland has 11 Nobel laureates, 10 born in Ireland. Israel claims 14, but only 6 were born in Israel.

Edit: Fixed a mistake I made, and to add, they also have more than double our population, and 2 of our Nobel laureates were named before Israel was a country.

And lets not compare war crime histories. Frankly that doesn't go well for them.

The surrogate has already won frankly. She denied the family the ability to make the child's medical decisions. Frankly the family should be entitled to sue her for the child's medical expenses for the duration of it's life. She has burdened that family with extreme medical costs.

The IDF's own analysis of their performance puts Palestinian civilians at 83% of the deaths in Gaza.

Pink and everyone like her who hear Israel and think Jew aren't helping their cause. People loudly denoucing the Genocide have made it abundantly clear that the actions of the Israeli government are not the actions of the Jewish people. To the point that trying to conflate them like this again is dishonest and should be called out. And frankly, she should be required to put her thoughts on Israeli settlements in Palestine on paper before we give her any further benefit of the doubt. She has burned through all reasonable benefit of the doubt when she thinks 83% civilian casualties (at least.) and denouncement of this genocide by Israeli genocide scholars isn't enough proof.

Yes, but I didn't nail you to a keyboard and require you to opinionate on something you know nothing about. It was your choice to type into reddit rather than google. You don't know what you are talking about, you claim "eleven out of twelve think she should not be punished for a thing she admitted to doing." When that's just not true. They weren't saying she didn't do it. Literally nobody in the case is saying she didn't do it. And not only do you NOT know that, you didn't sit on the jury. 11 out of 12 voted one way, and even the 12th openly admitted to reasonable doubt. Fuck you for your armchair judgements and refusal to accept that you need more damn information.

There is probably even a 15-30 minute grace period.

It's such a failure of journalism. There isn't even really a controversy here. Most people think those who are guilty of crimes should face punishment, and for immigrants deportation is a pretty understandable one.

If you want this polling to be serious, you have to describe what the least crime, that results in deportation is. Because most people would also not support deportation as punishment for a lack of TV license. Also, foreign born is gonna hit some people with Irish parents. My father is Irish, I'm foreign born. Nuance isn't the strong suit of these racists.

Otherwise you are just pandering to the animal racist instinct people have. And we're above that.