https://x.com/AmberWoods100/status/1969406211691868483

Reading through this thread;

BREAKING: Mangione’s defense just dropped a 114-page brief, moving to dismiss the indictment and strike Trump’s DOJ’s death penalty notice.

The filing calls out political interference, illegal perp walks, prejudicial leaks, and says Trump’s DOJ is pursuing execution for political reasons, not law.

Follow as I break this down. I’m covering Mangione’s trial with a trauma informed lens.

It helps me put into context what an actual sham capitalist show trial is in contrast to Soviet Justice.

Also are all journalists in it together in a plot to ensure only flattering pictures of Luigi reach the public? I legit haven’t seen a picture of him that is even remotely unflattering.

    • alexei_1917 [mirror/your pronouns]@hexbear.netEnglish
      2·
      2 months ago

      Why should the judiciary be independent of the democratic government?

      When the judge and the prosecution work for the same people, it can cause conflicts of interest, or the appearance of such, and make it seem like the judiciary is not there to be objective and determine the facts. Even the appearance of impropriety is a problem. Yes, how exactly to appoint judges then does become a point of debate, but it’s hard to expect them to be objective if the state can retaliate against them for ruling against it, obviously as such or behind the scenes.

      Why did you take my comment that there shouldn’t be evidence?

      It’s… kind of a stereotype of “show trials” that evidence is often… debatable at best.

      • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        4·
        2 months ago

        When the judge and the prosecution work for the same people, it can cause conflicts of interest, or the appearance of such, and make it seem like the judiciary is not there to be objective and determine the facts.

        So there should be two governments just for the sake of having judges and prosecutors coming from separate entities? And which government should be supreme? Who answers to whom?

        Why do you think an adversarial court system is the best in the first place?

        it’s hard to expect them to be objective if the state can retaliate against them for ruling against it, obviously as such or behind the scenes.

        What do you mean ‘rule against’ the state? Isn’t the judge an agent of the state? Do you mean a judge should have independence such that they can contradict their mandate?

        • alexei_1917 [mirror/your pronouns]@hexbear.netEnglish
          1·
          1 month ago

          What I mean is just that there should be rules and procedures in place to prevent situations where the state wants someone found guilty, the evidence and the letter of the law doesn’t support that, but the judge feels compelled to rule against the defendant anyway out of fear of retaliation. Innocent until proven guilty doesn’t work unless the state needs reasonable evidence to declare guilt, and someone in charge of determining that whose job is to weigh the evidence and interpret the law as written, not blindly agree with law enforcement agencies. And I know that a lot of Western legal systems today are nowhere near perfect, but I do think “innocent until proven guilty” is a concept we should keep after the revolution.