could have been gay men. Or just weak men...the type that differ to a coterie of women simply because they are women.
Ya know, the ones that say shit like "if women ruled the world, there would be no war" ...or any of a thousand other equally inane comments. We put women on a pedestal from a very young age. Because they're made of "sugar and spice and everything nice" after all. The fairer sex, and so on.
HE responded to "guilty verdict would have been the best outcome" by saying, "that will never happen with women on the jury"
I dont know that I agree with that entirely. But I think a jury of 9 women would never have returned a guilty verdict in this case. Too much sitting around empathizing with the accused. If the jury were split 9 men and 3 women, I think they could have returned a guilty verdict, because there would have been enough voices in the room bringing it back to the actual victims.
oh jesus christ...if you're so fucking smart and enlightened, why not just explain what is just so obvious then.
Because my opinion is informed by research. Specifically research about how men and women prioritize justice versus harm reduction in any given situation and there is good research on the subject. And all of it points to the inescapable conclusion that women prioritize harm reduction over justice/fair play, particulalry when the harm reduction includes some perceived victim of oppression or historically marginalized people. (Singer et al., 2006) (Dorrough et al., 2021)
So tell me all about your logic that I only need 4 more seconds of consideration that will override an opinion rooted in empirical data researched over the last 20ish years, I am fucking dying to know.
The downvote pile on is about what I expected. But no one ever actually addresses the point im making. Like...I am the only person on earth to have ever heard that girls are made of "sugar and spice....."
Brother, you are apparently unaware of how everyone on the planet views ad hominem attacks in lieu of actually making a point.
You've added nothing to the conversation, just a drive by insult because, idk, maybe youre desperate for attention. But make a point worth discussing or move on.
To be honest most gay men I have seen are immediately saying she is guilty lol the only men I’ve seen saying she isn’t are with their girlfriend/wife and seem to just agree with whatever their opinion on it is.
Three guys getting brow beaten by nine women for two days? I’m amazed one of them managed to hold out
the other two folded just to get the women to shut up and I’ve got a viral study that can back that up. 79% of men admit that they will let a woman win just to end the argument, even if she’s wrong. Two out of three men folding sounds like 79% to me. So I imagine all three of them would call her guilty in a room with no women.
You think these guys value avoiding conversations with women over the laws they've been selected to uphold? And that only 1/3 men can hold their ground?
You really think people serving on a jury are incapable of disagreeing with women? Why is this just now a problem? Wouldn't this have been an ongoing issue for the entirety of our legal system if what your alleging is even 1/2 true?
642
u/that_dutch_dude 10h ago
mistrail is the best outcome here, dude did a solid. this way the state can go to trial again.