All threads

All of the threads for this selected topic

Active thread

Only the replies to the one thread you selected
Sunflower: Simply put, no. Really, the idea of a world without mustard doesn't even make sense. Think about it... what else would fill the nasally void? What else provides such versatile flavor? Mustard has always been the most beautiful thing on this entire planet. Mustard will always be the most tasty thing in the universe. Sure, mustard alone is questionably tasty. But mustard doesn't work alone, must amplifies other lesser flavors. Even those who claim they don't eat mustard are just fooling themselves. Remember homeopathy? Well, pretty much everything is homeopathically contaminated with mustard, and mustard has brought their food greatness. Donald Trump thinks he can make America great again. No, he alone cannot. But mustard can. We should not build a wall. We should build a goddamn mustard waterfall. Niagara Falls? How about Mustard Falls? This is the only way to make mustard great again, scientifically proven in exactly 0 controlled trials, in eπi +1 peer reviewed journals. Why would this make America great again? Imagine if you could take any boring sandwich and slather it in mustard just by putting it outside. That's right, we're going to make mustard rain. The whole world would be spiced up a notch. Bland sandwiches would be edible again. Decent sandwiches would be mindblowing. Productivity would skyrocket a whopping 10,000% with all the newfound enthusiasm for life. South Korea and North Korea would be friends again. Israelis and Palestinians would stop killing each other. Instead, they would all revel in their love of mustard. Long story short, mustard not only binds this world together, but is the solution for all of this world's problems.
Sunflower: Shoot...sorry didn't mean to send that
Europa: you left out the "Burn on, my friend."
Neptune: Same name?
Neptune: Sorry, what was the question again? About arraignment? Something else?
Io: I too grew up totally putting mustard on my rice
Ross 154: Sunflower, ????
Triton: Can you clarify whether or not we will be assigned a prompt for the end of term essay? If we will be, when can we expect to have it? Furthermore, is it possible for you to assign a due date so that we can better manage our time?
Whirlpool: I would like to challenge the concept that trials (and in general, the charging of a crime) are all about a disturbance of the peace, reinacting that disturbance, and bringing the community back to stasis. I think that in many cases trials/charging of crimes are about maintaining the power of the state. For example, most of America likely does not consider possession of marijuana to be a disturbance of the peace of their community, and in many cases it might be a total norm of the community. So I don't think you can describe a trial on that charge as about restoring peace after it has been shaken. It is more about maintaining control and reinforcing the racist forces that led to marijuana criminalization in the first place. Thus, I think it is too narrow to view trials as merely being about disturbance of peace within a community.
Hagge: @Triton I think he said the due date was the last day of the term, so I'm guessing either the last day of class or the exam day for other classes -- 1/24?
Carreras: Dijon or spicy brown?
Io: @Whirlpool - major retweet
Luyten 726-8B: Maybe my memory is just shot at this point in law school, but it would be pretty cool if we had more information about it. I remember hearing 1,200 words but no due date or information about a prompt, which was "write about anything", and I'd love if we could get a lot more of that information put in one place so we could refer back to it
Chulak: Would it be possible for sweet pea to not run around in the class? Or at least not come near the students
Whirlpool: @triton he said everything is due the last day of the term
Deimos: I really appreciated the discussion about how we talk about other people's work and ideas. I think Professor Nesson made points that are easy to forget by out 2L year, and I like the idea of talking about someone's work as if they were in the room.
Neptune: Can we get another trial movie, other than My Counsin Vinny? I suggest Miracle on 34th Street: there's an arraignment there, too, right? Kringle?
Eysenlaan: I'm not sure you answered Jason's question. You are asserting the purpose for why there is no ability to respond but still not sure whether this is just your opinion or if you have any evidence that the system was intentionally designed for the purpose you are saying. Other than that, good class. I liked the movie and discussion of yesterday's feedback.
Vega: I enjoyed today's class. I think Professor Nesson has a remarkable ability to tie ideas together, explain deep and complex theoretical ideas, and stimulate thought. I think showing My Cousin Vinny was a great way to begin an interesting thought experiment about the criminal process as well. I hope class continues to look and feel like it did today.
Triton: With regards to today's class, I enjoyed getting to hear a bit about everyone through the introductions. I am looking forward to class with all of you. I also enjoyed watching My Cousin Vinny. I think that there were a lot of insightful responses with regards to arrangement and why there seems to be such a discrepancy between criminal and civil cases. I'm looking forward to hearing even more responses on this forum so that I can better understand why this discrepancy is warranted or why it is nonsensical.
Messier 83: I suspect that more of this prosecutorial desire to retain the dual guilty/not guilty pleading process is driven by the fact that this lets them bring more circumstantial evidence in front of the jury. If the defendant could remove certain issues from courtroom adjudication by agreeing to them (like agreeing that the defendant was at the scene of the crime, EG) then it would make it harder for prosecutors to bring in these elements, which are so powerful to juror perception. While this notion of bringing a trial to public certainty may be a theoretical groundwork for the process, I wonder if such a lofty goal is really what's motivating the prosecutors of today
Jupiter: Muddying the waters pre-trial might be a good thing--after all, isn't the defendant an essential part of the "performative" process? If the jury/public is entitled to an accurate presentation of the situation, then why would the defendant, who is at the center of that performance, be left out of the act? On another note, there were several people who raised their hands for comment multiple times but did not have the chance to speak.
Io: Loved hearing the history of everyone's name in this room. Really makes me feel satisfied with my tuition investment
Mygeeto: i think as soon as the door is opened to putting names behind these thread comments, the purpose of the threads is basically gone. There will always be pressure to put your name to get participation points, it will devalue anonymous posts from the poster's perspective, and we will no longer be certain that the posts are really coming from a place of honesty. Even if only the professor sees the name, I think the purpose of the threads is greatly damaged
Vorash: I really enjoyed the way the introduction activity was done. It is common in other classes to have introductions but its always done in the same "Name, Year, fun fact" formula. Going through the meaning of our names seemed much more genuine and insightful. I also enjoyed My Cousin Vinny as a visual teaching tool. I am a visual person and would love to continue using the movie to illustrate things we may discuss in class. Re our discussion of anonymity: I personally would prefer to keep the space completely anonymous because it 1) makes us more comfortable to give real feedback and 2) removes external factors that may influence us to come down one way or another on a position from discussion. In that vein, I think the space should stay as it is and participation should be based on the class. That being said, I am not completely opposed to the TA's on the back end knowing who we are if having participation be based on the threads is such a big deal.
Deimos: I love hearing the history of everyone's names. Can't wait to use LIPP to pay off my loans!
Coruscant: Second day, nice movie though. I agree that the function of the jury in our legal system is totally a joke. A jury? Is anybody really into being a juror? And the jury know nothing about anything. It is just a procedural comforting for the system and the function of the jury should be restored. And extremely agree where should be ground rules about posting here. Looking forward to next session!
Wolf 359: I found today's class to be fantastic. I think continuing on the trend of engaged class discussion surrounding the function of the judiciary/juries would be worthwhile. However, I would like to return to the topic of idealized discourse (surrounding Mao's paper) that was happening before break. I found the conversation surrounding Earth's response to be fascinating and I would like to flesh out the class's thoughts on the matter. Overall though, I would love to see the class continuing to be conducted in this manner.
Zurbarran: The reason for the guilty or not guilty procedure is to simplify and streamline the process, so it can easily be understood by the defendant and the wider public. It also allows D to admit to committing the crime, so he can be shown clemency. It simply saves a lot of time and makes things easier for everybody.
Montecalvo: Interesting discussion of the guilty/not guilty dichotomy as prosecution-friendly. The class struck a good balance between investigating legal institutions (arraignment, the jury) and discussing the nature of ideal discourse as such, especially re/the benefits and drawbacks of anonymity. I'd be interested to discuss the role of anonymity in the jury, whether it is unqualifiedly good that the votes of jurors be secret. Whether or not it is unqualifiedly good may have interesting implications for anonymity in the classroom and other spheres.
Io: I liked that we started to connect ideas of discourse to the actual trial and jury function today. I look forward to what we will do in future classes, and examining the logical underpinnings of our justice system and whether or not we are actually furthering those goals
Hagge: I would like to hear more about the history of why jury rights were put into the Constitution and subsequently the Bill of Rights and how that inclusion of juries in the process has changed over time -- I have very little background in that so it would be interesting to see change over time as a starting point for further discussion
Cantonica: I question the usefulness of these types of theoretical debates which focus on what the law “could be” in its ideal state. What is the ideal state? Whose values is it based upon? It would be much more intellectually challenging to have to discuss issues surrounding the juries in the real world we live in especially given the fact that mass plea bargaining is the standard in practice and the way that attorneys can strike jurors to create their version of a perfect jury. In reality most juries are not your peers or even of your community.
Coruscant: Today’s session goes deeper and loved the session of self-introduction.
Ross 154: I enjoyed being able to have a discussion on the rationale behind our criminal procedure, even if it only an ideal that no longer exists today. Quite frankly, if the true purpose of criminal procedure is to give authority and respect to the people, then I can only shake my head at how our system has devolved into and how it functions today. Entitling our criminal cases with "The People of X state" almost feels insulting when we consider how little juries are involved in a person's engagement with the criminal justice system. While I am happy we can all come to the intellectual agreement that our jury system does not work as it should, I want to entertain more conversations where we look at criminal trials and the role of juries within those trials today, and think about ways we can minimize the inevitable harm that results where prosecutors have an inexplicable monopoly of power in any given case.
Lothal: I found the discussion of the arraignment process very interesting, but I am not convinced that the motives of its design were so altruistic. The entire adversarial system of the courts is almost designed to sink the criminal defendant. Unlike civil trials which frequently involve business and contract disputes between sophisticated parties, criminal cases disproportionally involve defendants of color and various other disadvantaged persons who are almost certain to be unable to procure adequate representation. The design of an arraignment that allows the media and public to babble without allowing the defendant to emit a word of defense, seems consistent with the broader picture of authoritarianism and abuse of power in the courts.
Lothal: I found the discussion of the arraignment process very interesting, but I am not convinced that the motives of its design were so altruistic. The entire adversarial system of the courts is almost designed to sink the criminal defendant. Unlike civil trials which frequently involve business and contract disputes between sophisticated parties, criminal cases disproportionally involve defendants of color and various other disadvantaged persons who are almost certain to be unable to procure adequate representation. The design of an arraignment that allows the media and public to babble without allowing the defendant to emit a word of defense, seems consistent with the broader picture of authoritarianism and abuse of power in the courts.
Messier 83: just want to voice support for keeping this page anonymous and ungraded--the minute we allow for the option of having these comments considered for a grade, this page becomes a bloated Canvas discussion where people just try to show off for a grade and not really say what they're thinking about
Luyten 726-8B: I second that I think Jason's question deserved a better answer. I want to know how he "knows" what the solution is; I mean, facts and what the prosecutors can present are typically "determined" by the prosecution alone, but there's a process behind it as more evidence is uncovered, or there wouldn't be superseding indictments, which do exist. I think it isn't as simple as just preserving prosecutorial integrity of "the case"; I think that's one motivation, but that isn't the only one, and it certainly isn't all-encompassing, so where is the idea itself coming from?
Whirlpool: I also think that the question posed about guilty/not guilty could have been clearer. Like, it seemed to morph halfway through to a question of why you can't stipulate certain things ever throughout the trial, instead of being specifically about arraingment
Dione: With regard to the earlier class discussion about participation - would it be possible to get a clearer idea of how participation is assessed? E.g. would we be graded based on attendance, the number of times we speak in class, the substance of what we say? If the goal of the class is to pursue more open, honest, ideal discourse, I can't help but wonder if the pressure of a participation grade would interfere with that by creating an incentive to discourse for reasons other than truth
Langara: Hearing Professor Nesson’s description of the arc of the jury trial and jury makes me wonder if there was ever a time these terms we rely on (e.g., “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “guilty until proven innocent”) ever had meaning or power. I overwhelmingly doubt it. Those terms are currently overpowered by the racism, sexism, transphobia, and homophobia that jurors, prosecutors, judges and even defense attorneys bring into the trial and I suspect they always were.
Zurbarran: Can we please talk about Soleimani at some point in this course?
Vorash: I completely agree with @Dione. More clarity on what "participation" means (assuming we keep the threads anonymous) would be very helpful
Whirlpool: @Dione I agree. Clearer guidelines on participation would be helpful for everybody
Titan: @Dione I second this request
Neptune: 'Tis one thing to be tempted, Escalus, Another thing to fall. I not deny, The jury, passing on the prisoner's life, May in the sworn twelve have a thief or two Guiltier than him they try. What's open made to justice, That justice seizes: what know the laws That thieves do pass on thieves?
Carreras: Today's class was enlightening. I liked that Professor Nesson mentioned earth's comments from yesterday, pointing out the style of writing and reasoning we've been taught in law school. I'd like to hear more about Prof. Nesson's thoughts on the logic heavy language. I agree it can put blinders on seeing out justice.
Lothal: I also want to strongly support maintaining 100% anonymity. This is one of the most unique aspects of this class that makes it so different than every other forum in the school. It would be a shame to tamper with it! I also wish that participation would not be a factor in the grade at all, everyone is here to participate anyways due to a chosen interest in the subject and forced participation inhibits the organic flow of ideas and thought
Hagge: Is there a way to make this thread update automatically @ coders? I have to keep refreshing
Kernow: I want to deflate somewhat Nesson’s notion of a nascent, romanticized jury at our nation’s founding. The first juries were required to be composed of white landowners, essentially America’s gentry class. So the creators of criminal procedure and process already had in mind the sorts of hierarchy, racism, classism and other subversions of justice when envisioning how a defendant should be evaluated. Has it really devolved over time, or was it always fucked up in some way from the start? Otherwise, great classroom discussion.
Luyten 726-8B: Agree with @Dione and @Messier 83, at least in terms of the incentives that are created if it's about number of times spoken, and there's no way that doesn't become even worse if we just get this weird Canvas bloat thing that Messier talked about going lol
Beauclair: Agree with @Dione.
Io: I think it is important to separate theory and practice. I think we can recognize what the jury's ideal function is in theory, and construct our legal doctrines around that theory, while still realizing that the application of the theory has always fallen short of its goals
Hagge: @Lothal I completely disagree that participation shouldn't be counted in the grade-- we should be encouraged to speak and share ideas. Two reasons. One, it really does make class discussions better if people are incentivized to speak rather than sit in silence. Two, if one can't speak up and articulate your ideas and advocate for them, probably not the best way to become an effective lawyer.
Vorash: Agree with @Hagge, making this thread be self-refreshing as opposed to manually would make it 100x better
Langara: second what @kernow said
Whirlpool: @Io definitely. Though I am afraid we are going to lean too far into theory in this class that we forget about history and power structures
Athos: I liked learning about the approach to discourse in which we first try to understand the other side and then come in with a critique. I feel as if the discussion in which we talked about prosecutors could have more followed this style of discourse. In my opinion, the role of the prosecutor is more complex than our discussion made it out to be and I would like to delve into understanding the “other side.” I think prosecutors do in fact have a greater stake/mission (protection of the public, assisting victims, etc.) and I think a deeper discussion about prosecution could be fruitful.
Io: Things such as the racism/sexism/otherisms of jury members and the legal officers / attorneys is almost impossible to control for, and seems somewhat inherent in any imperfect determination that is present in the jury system
Carreras: Are we going to use this tool for discourse? I feel like we're all talking at each other.
Vega: While I strongly agree with many of the criticisms of the criminal process raised by students today, some level of detachment from the current state of affairs may be necessary to think about the idealized conception of the jury and its role in seeking justice. Sure, the system is broken today. Sure, it was not designed by altruists. But, achieving a more perfect system requires BOTH indicting those aspects of the system that have failed and thinking/improving those aspects of the system which could work well.
Zurbarran: I think the concept of graded participation infantilising and patronising at this stage in our education. And as someone above said: "forced participation inhibits the organic flow of ideas and thought"...!
Oberon: threads must be anonymous. otherwise it will just be an echo chamber like all other classes. i say that as a liberal
Fox Hollow: The question of whether or not “guilty” and “not guilty” are sufficient responses for a defendant in pleadings goes hand in hand, in my opinion, with how accessible the legal system is to those who really need it. As we saw in the scene from My Cousin Vinny, an inexperienced attorney, who has not yet been introduced to the proper “codes” of communication in a court room, appears less competent or able to serve his/her clients. This strikes me as another aspect of our legal procedure that presents itself as “legitimizing” the process when really, it may only serve as an additional burden/cost of legal counseling to those with limited means.
Jupiter: I wonder also if the jury was ever the "pinnacle" that it was designed to be. As stated earlier in the thread, the jury is often not "your peers," and certainly the professor's experience in the Supreme Court would say so as well. Is having a jury of 12-odd people judge your actions really even fair in the first place? Is it even possible to find "truth" in such a performative state?
Mygeeto: I agree with @Dione as well. When we know that our participation (in whatever form) is monitored and judged in some way by the professor, it will change what we choose to say, when we choose to say it, and probably even how we think. It is hard to see a way around that, but maybe there is a good solution
Mars: i loved today's class and i feel more convinced that this will be one of my favorite classes at HLS. it's been a truly refreshing escape from the drudgery of most law school classes, and i love the opportunity to connect with other students on a human level. as far as confidentiality/anonymity goes, i would like to point out that many students (myself included) feel scared or discouraged to speak up in class because 1) we haven't had time to really mull over the ideas/topics being discussed and 2) more so than worrying about saying something overtly racist/sexist/homophobic (though... that happens), i think many students, especially from poorer/public school/outside elite educated backgrounds, feel worried about not having the "correct" answer immediately or misspeaking or something. there's a huge level of classism in HLS classes even the most left/liberal students don't want to admit. this thread allows the rest of us to voice our opinions or thoughts and actually form opinions without the worry of seeming uneducated, unintelligent, or unenlightened.
Barefield: Well said but you’re ignoring that a grilled cheese consists of only these following items. Cheese. Bread with spread (usually butter). This entire subreddit consist of "melts". Almost every "grilled cheese" sandwich i see on here has other items added to it. The fact that this subreddit is called "grilledcheese" is nothing short of utter blasphemy. Let me start out by saying I have nothing against melts, I just hate their association with sandwiches that are not grilled cheeses. Adding cheese to your tuna sandwich? It's called a Tuna melt. Totally different. Want to add bacon and some pretentious bread crumbs with spinach? I don't know what the hell you'd call that but it's not a grilled cheese. I would be more than willing to wager I've eaten more grilled cheeses in my 21 years than any of you had in your entire lives. I have one almost everyday and sometimes more than just one sandwich. Want to personalize your grilled cheese? Use a mix of different cheeses or use sourdough or french bread. But if you want to add some pulled pork and take a picture of it, make your own subreddit entitled "melts" because that is not a fucking grilled cheese. I'm not a religious man nor am I anything close to a culinary expert. But I am honestly the most passionate person when it comes to grilled cheese and mac & cheese. All of you foodies stay the hell away from our grilled cheeses and stop associating your sandwich melts with them. Yet again, it is utter blasphemy and it rocks me to the core of my pale being. Shit, I stopped lurking after 3 years and made this account for the sole purpose of posting this. I've seen post after post of peoples "grilled cheeses" all over reddit and it's been driving me insane. The moment i saw this subreddit this morning I finally snapped. Hell, I may even start my own subreddit just because I know this one exists now. You god damn heretics. Respect the grilled cheese and stop changing it into whatever you like and love it for it what it is. Or make your damn melt sandwich and call it for what it is. A melt.
Dione: @Mars, completely agree re: your point on anonymity/confidentiality. I wonder if there’s some way of counting the contribution of those of us who are more comfortable sharing/developing our thoughts in a pseudonymous setting without losing that anonymity? I don’t like the idea that people could lose out on participation marks just because they made their contributions anonymously
Sunflower: I wish me invisible I want to disappear I am but a damsel Parading in knight's gear I want to be the unknown I need to be again a stranger I wish my secrets not shown Back to a time when it was clearer I wish to be a zephyr I want to be felt not seen I need to be less of the liar At least lesser than I have been I crave the comfort of solitude I long for the absence of physical contact I miss the tears that once had ensued Somehow then I was more intact I want to be an undetermined star I need to be unnamed in an uncharted galaxy I wish to retreat behind my avatar So you won't see the real me I wish me invisible I want to be protected by ambiguity I need to disappear from this debacle Into the welcoming arms of anonymity
Whirlpool: I think discourse on here would be easier if we could see people's messages in real time. It's hard to do a back and forth without that functionality
Barefield: I noticed we can post new threads, can we do that to create threads on topics we’re interested in
Dagobah: ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
Darn Ruach: We can make new threads
Dagobah: #freesweetpea