this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
110 points (99.1% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5240 readers
368 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
110
Just Stop Oil protester convicted over M25 protest (www.bbc.com)
submitted 9 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Huh. Just learned that criminal jury trials don't have to be unanimous in the UK.

I also just learned that until recently the were two states in the US that didn't require unanimous jury decisions in criminal cases. Can you guess what states and why it was changed? (Hint: has to do with racism)

Further hint: https://www.quora.com/Do-juries-always-have-to-be-unanimous-in-their-verdict

Up until 2020 and Ramos v Louisiana, where the US Supreme Court ruled that criminal trials had to have unanimous juries to convict, no. Since then a criminal jury has to be unanimous to convict on criminal charges. Civil cases can still be by majority vote.

In the 1960s the Supreme Court started prohibiting the routine exclusion of blacks on juries. To get around this, some states, including Oregon, allowed guilty verdicts on 10–2 or 11–1 jury votes (there would only be a token black juror or two and allowing a less-than-unanimous vote would allow the white jurors to ignore the black jurors). In Ramos, the Supreme Court ruled the proof quantum — beyond reasonable doubt — required unanimous jury verdicts. However, in Edwards v Vannoy, a case out of, IIRC, Texas, in 2021, the Supreme Court ruled the Ramos ruling would not have retroactive effect which means there are inmates in prison who were convicted by a non-unanimous jury.

Civil cases, because the proof quantum is a preponderance of the evidence or, a middle ground, clear and convincing evidence, unanimous juries are not always required — check on your personal judicial jurisdiction.

To be acquitted, or found “not guilty,” and double jeopardy attach requires a unanimous vote. But, and particularly after Ramos, all it takes is one juror to hang the jury. If a jury is hung, meaning there aren't enough votes to convict or acquit and further debate will be fruitless, then trial is declared a mistrial but double jeopardy does not attach. This means the prosecutor can retry the case until s/he gets a conviction or acquittal. In minor felonies, the costs and caseload of pending cases might mean the prosecutor won't retry, but in major cases, such as murder, that option is on the books…