The totally off-topic thread

[erkpod]

OH&S-approved work platform directly behind the sign...?

Totally approved!

Even the most fun sized person wouldn't need that

 

[Pushka]

In this particular example, it's called preventing a conflict of interest (potential or actual).

It would be like disqualifying myself if I knew the victim or defendant.

You were talking of rock spiders though in your post. They are pedophiles.

 

[anat0l]

You were talking of rock spiders though in your post. They are pedophiles.

His example of conflict of interest was disqualifying from a fire arson trial (based on his being a volunteer firefighter).

The paedophile issue is probably alluding to the popular belief that no one would be willing to admit they could be completely impartial at the trial of an alleged paedophile. Especially if they are thrust into the media beforehand and the jury sees this; the defendants could very well argue that they are not getting a fair trial.

The evidence certainly must prove the guilt (if that will be the case), but humans are still making that decision and they carry their own prejudices. The only reason we can't use robots to make the decision is because robots lack that kind of decision making power to process the evidence in order to make a deterministic decision (and even then it would be bedded with inherent assumptions on the probability of guilt of the humans who designed the robots in the first place).

Certainly, the justice system is designed so that it is better to have a chance of incorrectly declaring innocent (or not guilty) an actually guilty person, than it is to incorrectly declare guilty an actually innocent person. Whether or not that is the correct stance to embrace is another thing...

 

[Julesmac]

yep. As I said earlier... The system isn't perfect but they try to come close. Just because Fred was jailed for burglary two years ago and is now released with the police knocking on his door anytime a robbery happens in the area doesn't mean he did it. The jury knowing this would be prejudiced and likely not assess a case correctly. We are talking about normal people who stereotype and are easily led.
A fair trial includes analysing the evidence independently of previous convictions.

....and the Jill Meagher case just recently in Melbourne is a perfect example of someone with a prior history repeating his crimes

 

[Pushka]

....and the Jill Meagher case just recently in Melbourne is a perfect example of someone with a prior history repeating his crimes

And how the Parole system failed to recognise that.

 

[erkpod]

His example of conflict of interest was disqualifying from a fire arson trial (based on his being a volunteer firefighter).

The paedophile issue is probably alluding to the popular belief that no one would be willing to admit they could be completely impartial at the trial of an alleged paedophile. Especially if they are thrust into the media beforehand and the jury sees this; the defendants could very well argue that they are not getting a fair trial.

.

Exactly!

Apologies if it wasn't clear.

Interestingly (in NSW), I hold an officer rank in my fire service under the relevant Act. However due to my volunteer status, I'm not exempt from jury duty for this reason. However, a full time employee of any emergency service (operational or not) is exempt. The full time equal of my volunteer role is exempt.

 

[Mal]

....and the Jill Meagher case just recently in Melbourne is a perfect example of someone with a prior history repeating his crimes

... And day after day there are trials of people who haven't been Convicted of any offence before, some that have, and trials that shouldn't be occurring because the evidence is too weak. Juries should not know the history of a suspect... It has no bearing on the evidence provided.

 

[Princess Fiona]

To lighten the day here's something I've shamelessly pinched from Gate A13 at FT
http://toys.usvsth3m.com/are-you-hated-by-the-daily-mail/

For those in NSW replace with the Daily Telegraph and other states whatever your local Murdoch tabloid is.

I'm proud to say I'm hated

 

[Mal]

Yep I'm hated too by the Daily Fail

 

[Deleted member]

I only managed loathed

 

[Princess Fiona]

I only managed loathed

Pfft !! Light-weight

 

[drron]

yes I was only loathed.I expect If I had answered the factual way that neither parent born in the UK I would have been hated but I answered yes as I figured if it was indeed an Australian quiz I would answer both parents born in Australia.
I noticed also when answering I was a man it had no effect but when I went back and answered as a woman the counter progressed.

 

[markis10]

Vale Tom Clancy, your books were always a good read, at least there is one more to come Dec 3.

 

[cove]

The pre marital sex moved the counter as did having a job.
Of course I did the survey for my friend.

 

[Major]

Vale Tom Clancy, your books were always a good read, at least there is one more to come Dec 3.

too right...I have it on pre-order

 

[bass_ke]

I've just had a couple of these arrive today, anybody else into the series?

 

[JessicaTam]

I was hated by question 6. Happy now.

 

[erkpod]

The last question got me into Hated territory.

 

[Pushka]

Hated. I missed pre marital sex.

 

[TheEmu]

I was hated by question 6. Happy now.

Impressive. Quickest I could get it there was 5. Answering truthfully, Q8. Oh the shame!