Play Nice Random Chat Thread: Episode III

[Themanbun]

The lack of definition has changed it so the lower courts treat it now as on the balance of probability. It means justice is not going to be provided to you unless you can afford to take it to the high court where they are a lot more concerned about the precedence system.

Just crazy, if you are not guilty and are taken to court, you would have zero confidence that you are even a good chance of being found innocent.

"The lack of definition has changed it so the lower courts treat it now as on the balance of probability. "

That is plainly false. One of the few instructions permitted to be given is to directly compare the balance of probs with BRD. That's one of the things mentioned in section 64 (the section I just referred you to) and is permitted by precedents.

What the Victorian approach to BRD means is that the prosecution must prove its case not on probabilities, but so that 10/12 members of the public are convinced that there are no doubts which are not fanciful.

The system is far from perfect but I implore you to do a bit more research on the topic before commenting so confidently.

 

[Tas]

"The lack of definition has changed it so the lower courts treat it now as on the balance of probability. "

That is plainly false. One of the few instructions permitted to be given is to directly compare the balance of probs with BRD. That's one of the things mentioned in section 64 (the section I just referred you to) and is permitted by precedents.

What the Victorian approach to BRD means is that the prosecution must prove its case not on probabilities, but so that 10/12 members of the public are convinced that there are no doubts which are not fanciful.

The system is far from perfect but I implore you to do a bit more research on the topic before commenting so confidently.

That isn't correct at all and you are telling me I need to do research?

"However, under current law in Australia – guided by the High Court’s decision in Green v R (1971) 126 CLR 28 – judges are not supposed to give juries any clarification. The phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” is not to be explained beyond its’ words. As the Court said in Green, judges should:"

Beyond Reasonable Doubt — Rule of Law

www.ruleoflaw.org.au

This will end up in the high court and they are a lot more sticklers for precedence and the rule of law, the way the lower courts are ajudicated lacks any certainty at all.

The reality is very few jurors know what the legal meaning is of beyond reasonable doubt, what a terrible system we have.

 

[Themanbun]

That isn't correct at all and you are telling me I need to do research?

"However, under current law in Australia – guided by the High Court’s decision in Green v R (1971) 126 CLR 28 – judges are not supposed to give juries any clarification. The phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” is not to be explained beyond its’ words. As the Court said in Green, judges should:"

Beyond Reasonable Doubt — Rule of Law

www.ruleoflaw.org.au

This will end up in the high court and they are a lot more sticklers for precedence and the rule of law, the way the lower courts are ajudicated lacks any certainty at all.

The reality is very few jurors know what the legal meaning is of beyond reasonable doubt, what a terrible system we have.

Look at sections 63-64 of the Jury Directions Act. The trial judge can give some direction as limited by s64, in specific circumstances.

Actually, since you're too bloody arrogant to actually look at what I referred you to:

JURY DIRECTIONS ACT 2015 - SECT 63
When trial judge may explain "proof beyond reasonable doubt"
(1) A trial judge may give the jury an explanation of the phrase "proof beyond reasonable doubt" if the jury asks the trial judge—

(a) a direct question about the meaning of the phrase; or

(b) a question that indirectly raises the meaning of the phrase.

(2) Subsection (1) does not limit any other power of a trial judge to give the jury an explanation of the phrase "proof beyond reasonable doubt".

JURY DIRECTIONS ACT 2015 - SECT 64
How explanation may be given in response to jury question
(1) If the jury has asked a direct question about the meaning of the phrase, or a question that indirectly raises the meaning of the phrase, "proof beyond reasonable doubt", the trial judge may—

(a) refer to—

(i) the presumption of innocence; and

(ii) the prosecution's obligation to prove that the accused is guilty; or

(b) indicate that it is not enough for the prosecution to persuade the jury that the accused is probably guilty or very likely to be guilty; or

(c) indicate that—

(i) it is almost impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty when reconstructing past events; and

(ii) the prosecution does not have to do so; or

(d) indicate that the jury cannot be satisfied that the accused is guilty if the jury has a reasonable doubt about whether the accused is guilty; or

(e) indicate that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or fanciful doubt or an unrealistic possibility.

(2) The trial judge may adapt his or her explanation of the phrase "proof beyond reasonable doubt" in order to respond to the particular question asked by the jury.

 

[Themanbun]

I would suggest you consult the Judicial College of Victoria which has publications on this exact issue rather than websites which don't delve into that depth. The JCV publishes all relevant authorities, too.

Further, the Green case itself actually outlines some of what is acceptable in certain circumstances, as does Dookhea, a recent case in which the HCA said that the Victorian and NSW tendency to compare BRD with the balance of probs is "to be encouraged".

 

[Tas]

Look at sections 63-64 of the Jury Directions Act. The trial judge can give some direction as limited by s64, in specific circumstances.

Actually, since you're too bloody arrogant to actually look at what I referred you to:

JURY DIRECTIONS ACT 2015 - SECT 63
When trial judge may explain "proof beyond reasonable doubt"
(1) A trial judge may give the jury an explanation of the phrase "proof beyond reasonable doubt" if the jury asks the trial judge—

(a) a direct question about the meaning of the phrase; or

(b) a question that indirectly raises the meaning of the phrase.

(2) Subsection (1) does not limit any other power of a trial judge to give the jury an explanation of the phrase "proof beyond reasonable doubt".

JURY DIRECTIONS ACT 2015 - SECT 64
How explanation may be given in response to jury question
(1) If the jury has asked a direct question about the meaning of the phrase, or a question that indirectly raises the meaning of the phrase, "proof beyond reasonable doubt", the trial judge may—

(a) refer to—

(i) the presumption of innocence; and

(ii) the prosecution's obligation to prove that the accused is guilty; or

(b) indicate that it is not enough for the prosecution to persuade the jury that the accused is probably guilty or very likely to be guilty; or

(c) indicate that—

(i) it is almost impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty when reconstructing past events; and

(ii) the prosecution does not have to do so; or

(d) indicate that the jury cannot be satisfied that the accused is guilty if the jury has a reasonable doubt about whether the accused is guilty; or

(e) indicate that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or fanciful doubt or an unrealistic possibility.

(2) The trial judge may adapt his or her explanation of the phrase "proof beyond reasonable doubt" in order to respond to the particular question asked by the jury.

Why do you keep posting meaningless things like it is evidence of something?

That doesn't define what reasonable doubt is, doesn't allow the judge to explain to a jury what reasonable doubt is. We know a judge says this shit to a jury but when it says the prosecution needs to prove the accused is guilty at what point does evidence prove guilt, it is where the legal definition of the term is critical but most people don't know what it means and the judge can't explain it to them. If the judge did, you couldn't possibly find someone guilty based on an accusation alone.

 

[Themanbun]

Why do you keep posting meaningless things like it is evidence of something?

That doesn't define what reasonable doubt is, doesn't allow the judge to explain to a jury what reasonable doubt is. We know a judge says this s**t to a jury but when it says the prosecution needs to prove the accused is guilty at what point does evidence prove guilt, it is where the legal definition of the term is critical but most people don't know what it means and the judge can't explain it to them. If the judge did, you couldn't possibly find someone guilty based on an accusation alone.

Because I don't think you understand how the legal system works and it makes people not take you seriously.

At first you gave "a definition" of BRD as if it were relevant to the Pell case. That's not what would have been given to the jury, as I explained. I explained why the judge is not encouraged to explain it with them.

I explained that judges are instructed NOT to define it to the jury. In certain circumstances, they can provide some guidance. I showed you what that guidance is, which explicitly mentions that the judge can instruct the jury that it's not balance of probabilities, after you claimed that "lower courts treat it as the balance of probabilities".

You then went on a weird rant citing an old authority in order to prove your knowledge of the subject, all you did in doing so was make a declaration as to how your knowledge in this area is deficient.

Given that studies show that 55 per cent of pundits think 'reasonable doubt' equates to 'sure', and given that it is up to the jury to decide (if asked, the court will explain that it's not the balance of probs and it's not a fanciful doubt), all you'd need is 3 of 12 people to not be sure that you did it, and you'd be acquitted.

Again, it's not perfect and I've never claimed that it is. But your understanding of how this works is way off the money.

Lower courts do not treat it as the balance of probabilities. The dictionary definition you cited is not what jurors are allowed to know. Given that most of the population seems to equate BRD with "sure", then you need 10/12 jurors to be "sure" that you did it on the evidence presented, there's a fairly slim chance that people are just saying "oh he's probably guilty so let's return a guilty verdict". Hence why we've been trying to explain that the transcripts of evidence must contain some kind of smoking gun which goes beyond an accusation alone.

No one in this entire thread has ever said that a bloody accusation alone can return a guilty verdict. People have spent entire posts explaining to you how this is NOT the case, nor their belief.

 

[Tas]

Because I don't think you understand how the legal system works and it makes people not take you seriously.

At first you gave "a definition" of BRD as if it were relevant to the Pell case. That's not what would have been given to the jury, as I explained. I explained why the judge is not encouraged to explain it with them.

I explained that judges are instructed NOT to define it to the jury. In certain circumstances, they can provide some guidance. I showed you what that guidance is, which explicitly mentions that the judge can instruct the jury that it's not balance of probabilities, after you claimed that "lower courts treat it as the balance of probabilities".

You then went on a weird rant citing an old authority in order to prove your knowledge of the subject, all you did in doing so was make a declaration as to how your knowledge in this area is deficient.

Given that studies show that 55 per cent of pundits think 'reasonable doubt' equates to 'sure', and given that it is up to the jury to decide (if asked, the court will explain that it's not the balance of probs and it's not a fanciful doubt), all you'd need is 3 of 12 people to not be sure that you did it, and you'd be acquitted.

Again, it's not perfect and I've never claimed that it is. But your understanding of how this works is way off the money.

Lower courts do not treat it as the balance of probabilities. The dictionary definition you cited is not what jurors are allowed to know. Given that most of the population seems to equate BRD with "sure", then you need 10/12 jurors to be "sure" that you did it on the evidence presented, there's a fairly slim chance that people are just saying "oh he's probably guilty so let's return a guilty verdict".

No one in this entire thread has ever said that a bloody accusation alone can return a guilty verdict. People have spent entire posts explaining to you how this is NOT the case, nor their belief.

How can you be sure when there is no evidence other than the accusation? How is that remotely possible?

 

[Themanbun]

How can you be sure when there is no evidence other than the accusation? How is that remotely possible?

How can you be so sure that there was no other evidence other than accusation (testimony is more than accusation)? The full transcripts have not been released. Three of the most respected judges in the country were led through the exact evidence that the jury were and two of them found that a jury finding the case proved BRD was not unreasonable.

And yes, he can still appeal it further. The BRD standard is not taken lightly IMO.

 

[Tas]

How can you be so sure that there was no other evidence other than accusation (testimony is more than accusation)? The full transcripts have not been released. Three of the most respected judges in the country were led through the exact evidence that the jury were and two of them found that a jury finding the case proved BRD was not unreasonable.

And yes, he can still appeal it further. The BRD standard is not taken lightly IMO.

We don't have the full traanscript, but we can see the the evidence as was detailed https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au...of-appeal-proceedings/george-pell-v-the-queen

The prosecution had nothing other than accused testimony..

"Having reviewed the whole of the evidence, we would answer that question affirmatively. In our view, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Cardinal Pell was guilty of the offences charged. That is, there was nothing about A’s evidence, or about the opportunity evidence, which meant that the jury ‘must have had a doubt’ about the truth of A’s account."

https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-08/pell_v_the_queen_2019_vsca_186_-_web_updated_22082019.pdf

So the supreme court is of the opinion if you believe the testimony of the accused then that satisfies the beyond reasonable doubt test, however, there is no basis to have a jury able to determine if evidence sounds compelling and if it is true or not. Ie, you could get an actor to give evidence that is blatantly false but for it to be believable. I can't reconcile how a jury is expected to be able to determine truth from lie without reasonable doubt. If party A said B did it and party B says he didn't then I have reasonable doubt by default.

As I have said numerous times before, I have no reason to believe he wasn't telling the truth and that Pell isn't guilty, I think on the basis of probability he probably did it. But that isn't a high enough burden of proof for these cases.

I just have a hard time believing you can be free of reasonable doubt from a testimony alone unless there is something significant in it like being able to describe Pell in a detailed manner than a normal person's wouldn't or shouldn't be able to.

Yeah, two of the thee supreme court judges believed the testimony was enough to satisfy reasonable doubt, one didn't. We only need a 2/3rd majority in the supreme court, ironically if you were 2/3rd sure that wouldn't pass reasonable doubt test, would it?

This is obviously going to end in the High Court, and it may be upheld, who knows. I am just mortified that someone can have their life ruined without and hard physical evidence or an abnormal testimony like if the perp had some kind of deformity or uniquely marked private parts which goes beyond a story someone who was a choir boy could make up.

Nobody would want to have to try and defend themselves with this system. I think people are a bit blase because they aren't the ones who are trying to save their life and reputation. You just wouldn't want to be put in that position. If you had someone close to you who had a vendetta against you and the opportunity to, they wouldn't need a shred of supporting evidence to ruin your life.

 

[ferball]

Wut?

It is the major agricultural crop of the region.

Apart from cattle which uses significantly more land. Also (just to stick up for vegans,) there is a stupid percentage of Brasillian soybeans that go directly to cattle feed. Its probably over 3/4 of production.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Apart from cattle which uses significantly more land. Also (just to stick up for vegans,) there is a stupid percentage of Brasillian soybeans that go directly to cattle feed. Its probably over 3/4 of production.

I figured most of those soybeans went towards paying off World Bank loans?

 

[rickety]

A crap game of footy to watch, and I hope that Benny Brown snaffles the goalkicking, but the best result for me today was my best little mate being given the all clear from his doc after a tense week with crossed fingers. No scary leukemia for my little mate.

 

[Themanbun]

A crap game of footy to watch, and I hope that Benny Brown snaffles the goalkicking, but the best result for me today was my best little mate being given the all clear from his doc after a tense week with crossed fingers. No scary leukemia for my little mate.

Glad to hear brother!

 

[gokangas]

A crap game of footy to watch, and I hope that Benny Brown snaffles the goalkicking, but the best result for me today was my best little mate being given the all clear from his doc after a tense week with crossed fingers. No scary leukemia for my little mate.

Great news - better than a win. Went and saw my best mate in hospital today. Had a stroke during the week and gave us all a big scare. Coming on very well but still a lot of work to do. Nothing more important than health.

 

[ferball]

I figured most of those soybeans went towards paying off World Bank loans?

3/4+ of Brasils soybean crop are used as cattle feed. I dunno what happens with the money but the people that buy the beans feed them to bovines.

 

[ferball]

Possibly? I'd say definitely. The attempt to strip Indigenous people of their land failed in court so now they're taking the guerilla approach. Deforesting to make room to breed more ******* cows and keep destroying the planet.

Everyone should be aware that none of this would be happening if it wasn't for the political imprisonment of Luis Inacio Lula Da Silva, former president of brazil who brought millions out of poverty among other things, was leading by double digits in the polls before his arrest, and the judge behind his imprisonment went on to become Bolsonaro's justice minister, was later found to have been colluding with the prosecution and probably had ties to the CIA.

A large trove of documents furnished exclusively to The Intercept Brasil reveals serious ethical violations and legally prohibited collaboration between the judge and prosecutors who last year convicted and imprisoned former Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on corruption charges — a conviction that resulted in Lula being barred from the 2018 presidential election. These materials also contain evidence that the prosecution had serious doubts about whether there was sufficient evidence to establish Lula’s guilt.

 

[scottywiper]

Great news - better than a win. Went and saw my best mate in hospital today. Had a stroke during the week and gave us all a big scare. Coming on very well but still a lot of work to do. Nothing more important than health.

Health is wealth. Had a near miss myself a couple of months ago. Not nice!

 

[Snake_Baker]

 

[Groin guru]

leonardodicaprio
#Regram #RG @rainforestalliance:
The lungs of the Earth are in flames. The Brazilian Amazon—home to 1 million Indigenous people and 3 million species—has been burning for more than two weeks straight. There have been 74,000 fires in the Brazilian Amazon since the beginning of this year—a staggering 84% increase over the same period last year (National Institute for Space Research, Brazil). Scientists and conservationists attribute the accelerating deforestation to President Jair Bolsonaro, who issued an open invitation to loggers and farmers to clear the land after taking office in January.

The largest rainforest in the world is a critical piece of the global climate solution. Without the Amazon, we cannot keep the Earth’s warming in check. ⁣

T⁣he Amazon needs more than our prayers. So what can YOU do?

-As an emergency response, donate to frontline Amazon groups working to defend the forest.

-Consider becoming a regular supporter of the Rainforest Alliance’s community forestry initiatives across the world’s most vulnerable tropical forests, including the Amazon; this approach is by far the most effective defense against deforestation and natural forest fires, but it requires deep, long-term collaboration between the communities and the public and private sectors.

-Stay on top of this story and keep sharing posts, tagging news agencies and influencers.

-Be a conscious consumer, taking care to support companies committed to responsible supply chains.⁣ Eliminate or reduce consumption of beef; cattle ranching is one of the primary drivers of Amazon deforestation.

-When election time comes, VOTE for leaders who understand the urgency of our climate crisis and are willing to take bold action—including strong governance and forward-thinking policy.

#RainforestAlliance #SaveTheAmazon #PrayForAmazonia #AmazonRainforest #ActOnClimate #ForestsResist #ClimateCrisis

Fake news.

While I like Leo and disagree with the comments some have made about him in here (yes he has made some mistakes but he has a track record of giving a shit and he gave a shit a hell of a lot sooner than most did - that includes the mega-rich billionaires that decide to do something when they are 50/60. It's always a case of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' with any famous person / big company) he is wrong on this occasion.

Macron stuck his beak in an issue to pretend he cares ahead of the G7 Summit. He should focus more on his own city that is burning down.



The image they all shared with one another was from many moons ago. The photographer has since passed.

The 'Amazon produces 20% of the world's oxygen' is incorrect - it's ~6%

What Satellite Imagery Tells Us About the Amazon Rain Forest Fires (Published 2019)

Maps and images based on satellite data provide clues to how the fires started.

www.nytimes.com

"As of August 16, 2019, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average in comparison to the past 15 years." - https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-brazil

The fires are mostly farmland.

What helps the Amazon is cutting down beef consumption because of cattle ranching and all the resources required to make beef (something we both agree on).

 

[Groin guru]

There is no "quantum-proof cryptography algorithm".

I think you misunderstand the fundamentals of quantum computing.

I've misunderstood nothing. I said experimental. This isn't new and it has been discussed countless times by cryptography experts over the past 3 years. Some of us didn't stumble across an article or listen to a podcast once upon a time and just decide to cement it in their mind as "we're all ****ed and cryptocurrency is a waste of time".

NIST Reveals 26 Algorithms Advancing to the Post-Quantum Crypto ‘Semifinals’

The field has narrowed in the race to protect sensitive electronic information from the threat of quantum computers, which one day could render many of our c

www.nist.gov

It is being worked on. People are testing. Large corporations would not be investing billions into blockchain technology just to have it all fall apart in 5-10 years when quantum computing is established.

Stewart Allen, the chief operating officer at quantum computing firm IonQ, believes that, by the time a quantum computer grows to become sufficiently powerful to imperil the integrity of today’s blockchains, security systems will have moved to algorithms capable of containing them:

“There is no real threat of quantum computers breaking blockchain cryptography in the short-term. If and when this does happen, cryptography will have moved to more quantum-proof algorithms. We're at least a decade from quantum computers being able to break blockchain cryptography.”

This has been the common response to the question in recent times. No one knows how it's going to play out but to suggest it's over with whilst some of the smartest minds in the world are working on it is silly.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Firstly, it's good to see you back.

Okay, I hadn't read up on this for a few years, and yes, it appears that AES-256 bit & over systems are still safe from quantum cracking for now.

 

[Groin guru]

Firstly, it's good to see you back.

Okay, I hadn't read up on this for a few years, and yes, it appears that AES-256 bit & over systems are still safe from quantum cracking for now.

Cheers. Turns out port mods aren't too happy when reminded that they lost Pittard for steak knifes

I understand the hesitation and it is a big concern for the future. But there are definitely people in the space that are more than aware of the issue and the research that is taking place. I had reservations about it at the beginning of 2018 but I spoke to a good friend in the space (no bullshit kind of guy) and he said the better option is to push on now and constantly keep up to date with that area. I know IOTA is one project (a shit one in my opinion) that has a team researching in that space. IBM is another and they work closing with several crypto projects.

 

[Del191229]

That isn't correct at all and you are telling me I need to do research?

"However, under current law in Australia – guided by the High Court’s decision in Green v R (1971) 126 CLR 28 – judges are not supposed to give juries any clarification. The phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” is not to be explained beyond its’ words. As the Court said in Green, judges should:"

Beyond Reasonable Doubt — Rule of Law

www.ruleoflaw.org.au

This will end up in the high court and they are a lot more sticklers for precedence and the rule of law, the way the lower courts are ajudicated lacks any certainty at all.

The reality is very few jurors know what the legal meaning is of beyond reasonable doubt, what a terrible system we have.

High Court aren't granting this leave to appeal.

 

[Del191229]

Fake news.

While I like Leo and disagree with the comments some have made about him in here (yes he has made some mistakes but he has a track record of giving a s**t and he gave a s**t a hell of a lot sooner than most did - that includes the mega-rich billionaires that decide to do something when they are 50/60. It's always a case of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' with any famous person / big company) he is wrong on this occasion.

Macron stuck his beak in an issue to pretend he cares ahead of the G7 Summit. He should focus more on his own city that is burning down.

View attachment 733303

Calls fake news, uses a picture of an accident from months ago and two other indeterminate location pics, top right most likely not even in France judging the shall we say mise en scene.

A Gilets Jaunes pic would have been more effective but even those are months past.

 

[Del191229]

That said Groin guru - the Amazon burns every summer.