Dutch beach volleyball player Steven van de Velde, who served time in prison after he was convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl, won his second match at the Paris Olympics and received an even harsher reaction from the crowd on Wednesday than for his first match.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Or are they one of the ones stopping the corruption from spreading, but the lynch mob was convinced by the corrupt one that they were the real pedophile?

    Also, black people were regularly accused of that in the U.S. during the era when lynchings were common.

    • sandbox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      If they’re in the supreme court, they are the corruption.

      (BTW, I don’t agree with lynching alleged or sentenced pedophiles, just wanted to get in my little jabs at the court)

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Seems to me like a supreme court is kind of needed. So how do you have one if everyone on it is automatically corrupt?

        • sandbox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Some kind of institution with final decision making ability for disputes is needed, yes.

          How would I have it structured? Something along these lines:

          • The body itself is entirely transparent with all meetings and matters of discussion open to the public
          • The body makes decisions by consensus
          • The body is created to deal with a single issue and immediately disbanded thereafter.
          • No single person can serve on such a body more than once.
          • The members of the body are chosen by some kind of open, democratic process.
          • There are otherwise no restrictions, requirements, or limitations upon the capacity of who can be on such a body (e.g. no age requirements, no citizenship requirements, etc.)

          I’m not an expert and these aren’t exhaustive or anything, just a few ideas. Obviously the rules shouldn’t be decided by a single person, they should be decided by consensus.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Wouldn’t that require everyone to have extensive knowledge of the laws of the land? There’s a reason people go to law school for years. You can’t simplify a nation’s laws enough to have your system unless there was only one law and it was ‘whatever the kind says is illegal is illegal.’ You couldn’t even establish proper courtroom procedure that way because everyone would have to know what is and isn’t legally permissible.

            • sandbox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              No, not really - these kinds of decisions would be more along the lines of finding a fair resolution to a dispute, rather than the interpretation of specific law. That sort of thing is done with the intent to oppress, rather than remediate.

              We basically have this system already for lots of crimes in certain legal systems based on the commonwealth, it’s called a jury.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                So there also shouldn’t be laws? Because otherwise I’m not sure how matters of law should be settled like this if people aren’t familiar with the laws.

                • sandbox@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Sure, society needs rules, but they don’t need to be all that complex, and the real nuances or loopholes are better handled as individual cases

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    I think you underestimate how many laws you need to keep a nation functional.

                    Even Hammurabi had 282 written laws and his was a ‘whatever the king says is illegal is illegal’ empire.

                    You need laws to cover everything from murder to product safety to child custody after divorce. And none of those are able to solved simply every time because many cases have a lot of nuance.

                    On top of that, as I said, you need a lot of rules covering courtroom procedures. Expecting a random citizen to understand things like when something can be presented as evidence and what sort of questions a witness can be asked is expecting too much of them.