143
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
143 points (99.3% liked)
United Kingdom
5024 readers
262 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
What part of my comment said otherwise?
No part explicitly but this whole paragraph ignores the fact that the prosecutor presents their case and influences the juries opinion. No defense or alternative argument is made.
The expression "a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich" is a nod to the fact that, often, a grand jury votes in the direction the prosecutor wants them to.
Yes, a prosecutor presents evidence to convince a jury to go to trial. They have to influence the jury to agree.
Defense's part comes at the trial.
Because they usually bring sufficient evidence, and the jury is only deciding if there is sufficient evidence to move forward. This doesnt decide guilt.
There are plenty of things to complain about when it comes to the US "justice" system. Grand jury decisions aren't remotely the problematic part.
That's not true at all.
Opening paragraph:
I'd personally say cops, prosecutors going for the easy win, the structure around plea bargains, judges made by selection, judges elected with no knowledge or experience required, etc, play far bigger roles in the problems with the system of justice, but sure.
This is wrong and it's what I responded to.
A grand jury refusing to indict might mean the evidence wasn't sufficient or it might mean the prosecutor didn't really want an indictment.
Personally I'd say the issue with the US justice system is that it's a system full of problems and Americans seem to think ranking them is more important than addressing all of them.
None of these problems has a "bigger role" than the others because if you fix one the system is still broken. This is just one representation of the endemic issues within the US system of government.
"Don't fix anything because so much is broken" and "All problems are of the same importance" are not, and will never be, philosophies I subscribe to.
You do you bud.
I didn't say "don't fix anything because so much is broken" so it seems like you do subscribe to it since you brought it up.
I'm just trying to keep up with you moving the goalposts. First it was "grand juries aren't remotely the problematic part" to "they're not the biggest problem".
You asked why I commented originally, I explained, then refuted you with a source. Don't get mad at me for your own spurious claim.
By comparison to the other issues they arent remotely problematic.
Nothing i said is contradictory, so you can cut that crap now.
Edit:
Annnnddd....
Yeah you did.
No I didn't. If you fix one the system is still broken, meaning one cannot have a "bigger role" as they all cause a failure in the US justice system. You have to fix all of the issues. Of course you have to start somewhere but that starting point is subjective.
Contradictory by definition means inconsistent and going from "not remotely" to "not as big a role" is inconsistent. "Not remotely" means not at all and "not as big a role" is inconsistent with "not at all".
Yeah, dont bother fixing it at all unless you can fix everything. So... Exactly what I said you said?
Depends on the scale.
And considering things can be brought back in front of a grand jury because its not a criminal trial, yeah, its basically nothing by comparison as a problem.
Say more bullshit about moving goalposts and I'll just go ahead and block.
Go ahead and block me. You're clearly twisting my words to fit what you want to think.
Why crop out the second sentence?
Not even remotely
Definition of not even remotely - Reverso English Dictionary
adverb
not in the slightest degree
The two situations are not even remotely similar. Her explanation was not even remotely believable. The two events are not even remotely connected.
If you get so upset over someone calling out your contradictory statements perhaps you should take an internet break.
No interest in your bs. Goodbye.
Ok, though it's not bs because I actually sourced my statement and didn't contradict myself.