Awful article, its truly hard to read. Why is the entire backstory of the victim relevant? We shouldn’t need to be told to have empathy for an innocent victim, that should be automatic. The driver deserves a sentence for second degree murder.
I lost track and had to abandon reading it. Meandering rambling.
Does the rich want a lynching based order?
I have unhinged family members who would gladly hunt down an individual who did this to their loved one.
Is that a “hoarding guns in case the government gets corrupt” situation. Or are the people involved too white for that?
So if the victim is not at the same status as the offender, say in financial terms, then the penalty is decided upon each of the individuals portfolios? And then that is how the outcome is determined? Someone please explain how this is like uhh, um not a sustainable path forward. JFC , it’s beyond wretched.
Holy shit, that article is tedious to read. Nowadays “good writing” seems to mean “jump around in the timeline a lot and write a whole lot of irrelevant backstory”.
Oh good, it wasn’t just me then. Admittedly I’m ADHD but usually I have no problem reading long form articles if they’re well written, but this shit was just… uh… shit
The writer needs AI to pad the words in an article, and the reader needs AI to sum up an article quickly.
Maybe it was an AI?
The Tarantino Method, they call it.
Should America be reformed, there should be a rule about pardons: A governor initiates the pardon, then 51% of all participating voters has to reject the pardon to prevent it. Further, the pardon’s effect is restricted to their state. A presidential pardon is national, but again requires 51% of participating voters to deny it.
This form of cancelling vote allows decision makers to have reasonable autonomy, but if voters vote against it, the pardon is easily denied by the public. The voter pool is whoever sends in a vote of yay or nay. So if there are people dedicated to preventing a leader from making bad pardons, they can get out the word and swell the pool of rejection votes.
IMO, we should have open-sourced digital and standardized direct voting on all matters, with physical laminated printouts for verification against the digital votes. Everyone attached to a city can vote there, those who live in a state can vote on state matters, and occupants of the nation can do the same on that level. No gender or qualifications, beyond having a residence within the nation, and having citizenship - regardless of how it was obtained.
It seems a LOT easier to just take away pardons entirely. They are abused more often than not.
Yeah, it sucks for innocent folks. But their sentence can still be commuted.
The fact we still have the death penalty that’s still unjustly applied across race is every reason pardon powers should stay in effect. Controls need to be in place for certain for them but getting rid of them I feel is a slippery slope into further punishment incarceration for minor infractions, especially POC.
Seems to me that this is a great argument for getting rid of the death penalty. It’s a win-win. No more pardons for the guilty, no more executions for the innocent.
Pardon powers have been in effect while this was unjustly applied.
I understand the impulse, but they frankly don’t contribute meaningfully to the actual criminal justice system.
After Richard Nixons pardon, It should have been unequivocally. Fucking. Over.
Part of an overhauled America, would likely entail a redoing of all kinds of things. Including a standardization of criminal codes - getting rid of legacy criminal qualifications in every state, and starting fresh from a clean sheet design. Over time I expect that sort of thing to eventually devolve with the introduction of new codes, but we can enshrine things.
For example, requiring attorneys to switch between defense and offensive roles, allowing both sides to pick their representatives, make it so that all legal representation is free, standardize records of lawyers for people to review, ensure juries are split in half, each receiving an explanation of the defense or offense at the same time, ect.
To sum up: make it harder to game the legal system, and give the prosecution and defense equal standing. Right now, prosecutors get too many advantages.
Probably a topic best for the Legal Eagle team to roundtable and do some game theory on.
In theory, pardons can be good for national security stuff. But yeah, outright elimination is definitely an option worth considering. There is a lot of baggage in the Constitution that wasn’t…good. We have much more hindsight to work with than the Founding Fathers.
with physical laminated printouts for verification against the digital votes
How do you keep your vote secret then?
You show your physical ballot if you believe that there is foul play, and need to prove it. Otherwise, your vote remains anonymous.
Secret ballot means no one, not even you, should have a record of who you voted for.
51% of all participating voters has to reject the pardon to prevent it. Further, the pardon’s effect is restricted to their state. A presidential pardon is national, but again requires 51% of participating voters to deny it.
Who are the voters in this scenario?
EDIT:
we should have open-sourced digital and standardized direct voting on all matters
First of all: digital voting is famously difficult to pull off. Source: last two US elections, especially the 2024, where - somehow - the guy who’s friends with the guy whose company makes the majority of the voting machines, and who provides them all with Internet access, somehow knew the result 4 hours before the count ended.
Secondly: direct voting is probably the worst thing you could think of in terms of systems of governance.
Just think about it - all the flat earthers, all the anti-vaxers now get to vote in critical, strategic things. You get idealistic pacifists to vote on the military budget, and people who failed primary school to vote on the NASA budget. Laws are famously convoluted and full of tech- and lawyer-jargon, and you want to have Buck and Darlene from the trailer park voting on them?
While pointing out that the public at large is just wildly ill-suited to be making policy decisions on many topics which absolutely need to be regulated, lest companies cheap out on worker safety and get people killed, you’re missing the far more pressing matter with this idea. This level on granularity is just absurd for direct democracy. The sheer number of votes such a system would entail would rapidly induce voter fatigue. Besides, even if it’s just opening an app and clicking a button, how many voters have the time to stay informed on relevant developments related to upcoming matters to be voted on to actually have an informed opinion on the topic, and of those, how many would actually turn up to vote for the thing? NY had 39.6% of eligible voters not cast a vote in the 2024 presidential election, slightly below the national average of 36.1%. Last year alone, Governor Hochul pardoned 24 people, according to her site’s press releases, 11 of which were the day before New Year’s Eve, smack in the middle of the winter holidays. You folks really think you’re going to get meaningful voter participation in 24+ elections a year (ignoring how many elections Trump would trigger with his presidential pardons, because this number is already unreasonable enough), when nearly 40% of eligible voters sat out the most heated presidential election in decades?
You can have direct democracy to an extent, but for the most part, you’d still need to leave the politicians and technocrats to do their jobs. Sure, there ought to be mechanisms for either the people or the government to trigger a popular referendum on a given matter (say, voters strongly feel that none of the politicians or governing bodies are reflecting their will on a matter, or a broadly popular policy is being blocked by obstinate opposition factions in a closely divided legislature, for example), but they really ought to remain exceptional incidents. Otherwise, you’re doomed to get bogged down by rule by committee under a different name, and nothing is ever going to get done.
The discussion is about liquid democracy. It is only form of democracy that doesn’t result in zionazi oligarchist corporatist supremacism, but generally, the privilege of voting on every pardon is not the main appeal.
My, bestest, form of liquid democracy is that you have the option to delegate your vote on any silo of topics/legislation to anyone who can delegate all the votes they “control” to anyone else too. So voter fatigue is not a real argument. You’re not obligated to vote. If you had delegated your vote to someone who voted for pardon in OP, you might be pissed off at them, and “recall” your support immediately.
Digital ID is only reasonable under guarantee of a non evil state. Liquid democracy is both a great use of Digital ID, and only permitted imposition of it.
You can have a pardon committee which isn’t uncommon then you only would expect a vote if the governor pardons someone outside that in violation of norms.
Buck and Darlene don’t have financial incentives to attack Iran. Our richest and ‘wise’ leaders who had the resources and time to better the world, failed to do so. The argument you present is looking pretty frail, in light of the last decade. Also, in previous centuries, it wasn’t possible for direct voting to be effective in the US: The nation is huge in size. It wouldn’t have been easy to collect votes quickly. With a (free) smartphone in hand, anyone can instantly check out a voting measure and cast their opinion on it.
Secondly, I mentioned that there should be laminated receipts from the voting machines. Every voter may ask for it after casting their vote. Their cellphones can also have a QR code, so they they can go into the local print shop to immediately have their voting record printed out. Plus, open-source voting. That means instead of Diebold making the software, the federal government does, which has to allow inspectors from any state to make unannounced audits of the software chain.
Thirdly, I already mentioned who the voters are: the ones who cast an vote. Requiring absolutely 51% of EVERYONE is unrealistic. Instead, the voting pool should adjust according to how many people cast a vote. So if 5,000 people cast votes, 2,501 have to say ‘Nay’ to prevent a pardon. We can require pardons and other voting things to have 60 day deadline. The first 30 days are an announcement and commentary period, the later 30 days are for the actual voting. This helps prevent secret ‘riders’ and whatnot being free of scrutiny or getting a surprise vote.
Buck and Darlene don’t have financial incentives to attack Iran
Financial? No. But they’re using Facebook, and the military industrial complex has been bombarding their feed with rage-bait of how Iran is going to rape their children, so they decide that US has to bomb Iran first.
Our richest and ‘wise’ leaders who had the resources and time to better the world, failed to do so
Mate, that’s not a problem with democracy. That’s a problem with the fact that you currently have an organised crime ring that’s taken over the country, and your entire rule of law got kicked in the balls.
With a (free) smartphone in hand, anyone can instantly check out a voting measure and cast their opinion on it.
Mate…
First of all: digital voting is famously difficult to pull off. Source: last two US elections, especially the 2024, where - somehow - the guy who’s friends with the guy whose company makes the majority of the voting machines, and who provides them all with Internet access, somehow knew the result 4 hours before the count ended.
Did you miss this part?
Secondly, I mentioned that there should be laminated receipts from the voting machines. Every voter may ask for it after casting their vote. Their cellphones can also have a QR code, so they they can go into the local print shop to immediately have their voting record printed out
You seem to be under the impression that “vote fraud” means Belarusian or russian levels of comedy, where the person committing fraud wins by taking 90%+ of all votes.
How it actually happened in your case was by flipping a couple thousand votes here and there.
Which means one of two scenarios:
-
Nobody gives a shit because the difference looks realistic enough to not suspect anything.
-
People get salty and call for re-counts for every single vote they lose.
Also: people get receipts? Great. How do you anonymise their votes?
Also-also: people can call for a re-count? How many people? One person can cause the re-count of all votes? Do you need a percentage? If so, how is it collected? Via an online service, such as change.org, famous for being botted non-stop? What happens if most people forgot to take their receipts? Or threw them out?
Plus, open-source voting. That means instead of Diebold making the software, the federal government does, which has to allow inspectors from any state to make unannounced audits of the software chain.
Open source doesn’t protect you from exploits, mate.
Thirdly, I already mentioned who the voters are: the ones who cast an vote. Requiring absolutely 51% of EVERYONE is unrealistic. Instead, the voting pool should adjust according to how many people cast a vote. So if 5,000 people cast votes, 2,501 have to say ‘Nay’ to prevent a pardon
Right. So, knowing that the vast majority of people would lose interest after the second vote (it’s already difficult to drag their arses into the booths once every four years), you’d end up with big businesses offering thousands of votes for whatever case in exchange for a payout.
It is my assumption that an America that has been overhauled, would have UBI. Thus free smartphones, because they make it easier for people to do stuff. Anyhow…
1: Open-source means anyone can look at the code, be it on their machine or at the repository. With things like hashing, it can be verified at each step of the voting process that the vote remains intact by auditors. The voting software should be device agnostic, and be something used in all elections and voting. By making the software itself uniform each year, it is easier to notice when something is off. This is very different from Diebold and other physical devices, because those are black boxes.
2: The receipts are not about anonymity. They are laminated so that people can keep them in storage, and bring them to a poll verification booth if the call goes out. The digital vote is anonymous when cast, the physical ballot reserved for when volunteers are willing to reveal their vote in public. While obviously not fool proof, it is an extra step against corruption if needed.
3: Obviously, there would have to be laws against corruption to go with a redefined nation. Also, a UBI-based society would have less corruption, because money is associated with luxury, rather than necessity. The punishment for being bribed to vote for an interest, could be to have UBI income penalized. UBI supplies, such as beds, food, housing, internet, ect, aren’t taken away - just the money for buying fancy stuff that UBI doesn’t provide. People who are greedy, would have to think about whether they want to lose their guaranteed income for a potential bribe.
4: When it comes to calling for a recount, it could be something like 20% of previous participants of a voted measure calling for it, or 30% of eligible voters, whichever milestone is reached first. Presumably, frivolous calls for a recount would automatically fail if they haven’t garnered support. Presumably, the open-source voting software would be used for collecting the voting metrics.
Open-source means anyone can look at the code, be it on their machine or at the repository.
Yeah good luck with that. There probably aren’t more than a few hundred people, thousands at best, in the world who understand the mathematics required for properly pulling off electronic voting, because it requires some sort of zero knowledge protocol – you want tamper-evident votes, but you don’t want anybody to be able to connect a specific vote to a specific voter, and you also need to eg prevent the same person from voting multiple times, while also making sure that only citizens can vote.
Here, read this 2025 article on Estonia’s system: https://eprint.iacr.org/2025/506.pdf
Super simple. Yeah, sure anyone can look at the code, but 0.00001% of the people looking at it will understand it, and even fewer can actually spot any potential problems because the systems are so damn complex. And what’s worse, you can have holes in your voting system that you don’t know about until way after a vote, and then you may not have any way of knowing if the vote was valid or not
The point of laminated receipts, is to allow a voter to give physical proof if something is wrong with the digital system. If there are enough people who reveal their votes, they can use it to force an investigation. By having every physical ballot laminated by default, people can just toss it into a storage box and not worry about it falling apart if something comes up some years later.
What do you even need the digital system for at that point?
Like, did you even bother to look at that article? Electronic voting is incredibly complex, and if you end up having to rely on physical receipts anyhow because you can’t be sure the result is right, why even bother?
-
I nominate this bastard as a potential resident of Luigi’s mansion.
Testing the new lawlesness apparently.
American justice. Best justice money can buy.
Here’s a similar story from a couple years ago about a racist piece of shit who shot and killed a protestor, was found guilty by a jury of peers, then governor and likely klan member Greg Abbott pardoned him.
Here’s a quote from Daniel Perry on social media before he murdered someone at a BLM protest in cold blood:
“I might go to Dallas to shoot looters.”
And
The friend replied to Perry, “Can you catch me a negro daddy", and Perry responded, “That is what I am hoping.”
Abbott pretended it was a self defense killing when Perry drove up, shot his victim who was pushing his girlfriend’s wheelchair, the drove off. It didn’t hold up in court so he lied about it in his pardon. Murderers and would-be slavers, Abbott and Perry deserve a long drop and a short rope. Pardons are a mockery of justice by jury decision.
tl;dr - convicted Guilty by jury, then-Governor of NJ who was handing out pardons like candy immediately pardoned him via a pre-existing clemency request that went into public view on the nj.gov website while they were clearing the courtroom after the jury left. Rest of the article is word salad, probably AI.
Thanks. NYT is paywalled.
Then use an add-on to block.
The article is so poorly written. I can’t believe people pay for this kind of garbage writing.
They don’t that’s why the writing is garbage
So what is the point of juged by your pears. Or is it we are not his peers cause we poor.
Unfortunately, we never were. They have just stopped pretending at this point.
You forgot about how humid it was.
I don’t have a problem with the writing style. Doesntseem like AI to me.
Vigilante justice. It doesn’t always work out. Occasionally it does. Just saying.
Vigilante justice. Chomping at the bit to dole out a death sentence based on a 34 word post title on a website.
I didn’t say that. You said that. What the hell is up with the death sentence talk?
Oh, I’m sorry. I was stereotyping vigilante mobs.
Wow. Such an assumer. I didn’t say anything about mobs. Perhaps your idea of vigilante justice is akin to an unruly mob of torch wielding townies that have come to string ‘em up? Good lord.
Vigilantes can’t put people into jail.
No, but they don’t have to murder them either.
True dat!
Sometimes the law makes the wrong decision and at those times, something can be done to correct that. That’s all I’m saying.
And sometimes they don’t. Perhaps we give pause and take a moment? Then maybe lady justice will do diligent service and we can collectively knuckle bump and call it a win?😃 I’m not in a hurry. Let’s see what a civil court says? Six dollars & my left teste says it will be settled ultimately after much dickering for a non disclosed amount. I reckon justice has a dollar amount set as an affirmation. And there still will be the divide. I am not exactly thrilled about this btw.
We can not allow 2 justice systems to exit. If the law isnt equal for all, then what is it? What is the point?
The government wants our taxes, but refuses to represent us or protect us. Thats not what i signed up for. Thats not american. Thats not worth defending.
To go further, it IS worthy of contempt, hatred, and VIOLENCE DESTRUCTION.
OPPRESSION MUST BE MET WITH AN EQUAL OR GREATER REACTION. EVERY TIME.
Oppression and control. Protection of the wealthy from the poor.
you already have 2 systems… it’s time to act to destroy them and fix it
Not just a rich man, the nepo baby of a Democratic party power broker, apparently
FTA:
“Unfortunately, when politics pervades justice, the rule of law becomes subordinate to influence and power…a conviction can be rendered meaningless not by the verdict of a jury, but by the intervention of political power and connections,” the ACPO spokesperson wrote. “Justice must be blind to status, relationships, power, and expediency; when it is not, the community loses faith in the very system meant to protect it.”
Well give that fucking family OJ treatment cant pardon away a civil suit. And since he was found guilty well then take that fucking families wealth.
deleted by creator
How so? I’m not that familiar with either of them other than knowing they are news outlets.
Unsurprisingly the same Governor that made plates and insurance mandatory for all e-bikes. Guy had a busy week as he was leaving office apparently.
Issuing this pardon before the jury had even rendered the verdict. Funny how mountains can be moved so expeditiously when it’s for a friend.
