nyaanarchist:emmaubler:nyaanarchist:emmaubler:Yes, our federal government was deliberately structure
nyaanarchist:emmaubler:nyaanarchist:emmaubler:Yes, our federal government was deliberately structured to provide checks and balances and prevent the tyranny of the majority. Some of those checks have already been obliterated, but some still remain. Similarily, in a regular criminal trial it doesn’t matter if the jury is split 7-5 in favor of a guilty verdict–they have to be unanimous. Convictions require a higher threshold than majority rule by design. “Tyranny of the majority” is just what authoritarians call democracy. The alternative to “tyranny of the majority” is “tyranny of the minority” where a small group of people have power over the majority of people, which we call oligarchy.“I think the voices of minority populations shouldn’t be ignored and run roughshod over, and convictions are intentionally designed to be difficult to obtain in the interests of protecting the innocent” = authoritarianism now. Who knew? Our government isn’t set up to “protect the voices of minority populations,” the checks and balances that exist are lkke that to stop progress from happening and stop war criminals from being held accountable. The founding fathers literally admitted this when they set it up lol. Checks and balances exist to stop common people from disrupting things.The US has the largest prison population in the world both per capita and in total so maybe our “justice” system isn’t really protecting the innocent? Why is that the only time it protects people, it’s the rich and powerful?I’m sorry, but what’s your alternative? The system overall is far from perfect, but its set up in such a way that even just a few, or even one conscientious voice(s) can prevent injustice from being enacted. And yes, sometimes that can allow the guilty to go free. But a system were sometimes the guilty go free is far preferable to a system where the innocent must suffer because of the whims of a few -- source link