Studies of white co defendants, opposed to there colored condefendants, show white people in fact are given life more often when the same judge grants death to their colored co defandant.

Im putting this in my presentation

Thanks for this!!!

Thank you so much! Sir

I swapped to another explanation at the word 'argumentation'.

Rest in peace he didn't deserve the death sentence

If liquid magnet would be moving over a bar magnet it would spin when moving some generators and produce energy then at the end of bar magnet liquid magnet would be moved on another bar magnet near and the liquid magnet would move in oposite way and at the end of the second magnet liquid magnet would be moved again and so on

If liquid magnet would be moving over a bar magnet it would spin when moving some generators and produce energy then at the end of bar magnet liquid magnet would be moved on another bar magnet near and the liquid magnet would move in oposite way and at the end of the second magnet liquid magnet would be moved again and so on

Incredible

What if she knows the case on the defendant side and wont recuse yourself

Thank you Dr Stearn. It was a useful and very instructing course.

Frankly, didn't understand clearly

This brings up an interesting question. Suppose a person is suicidal and confesses and waives his/her rights, etc. in order to get the death penalty. Is the state then helping the person commit suicide? Such a thing is typically frowned upon and is even illegal and yet it could be argued that in this situation the state is assisting the person to commit suicide.

Do I understand it correctly but it’s a Hofeldian privilege to vote?

Shouldn't prosecutorial misconduct involving the death penalty be attempted murder? I really don't see how intentionally witholding exculpatory evidence is not the equivalent of attempted first degree murder.

These things are not as two dimensional as you would like. I'm living proof that it is false.

Shame on MISANDRIST Univs on ignoring most obvious denominator Only MEN receive it & have 20 times worse outcomes in everything... Conscription only MEN Corona deaths MEN twice...Murdrs MEN thrice....Supervised work MEN thrice....

This alone is why I cannot be tried in any court since they kill Americans. Direct reason and the most important protection by the constitution.

Just a bunch of Freemason lawyers if you are not aware when misjustice occurs.

The thoughts doing through of classic briefs study and Federalist Papers' basics.

So basically almost everytime an evolutionary gene or advantage developing it will either be seen as a “mutation/defect” and be at risk of attempts to prevent its development by the majority of the species that can’t comprehend becoming obsolete and wont except the inevitable. Or it will burst into existence in a percentage of a species fast enough to ensure that the comprehension of what’s really happening spreads fast enough to overpower the attempts to delay it long enough to figure out a way to have control over the advantage.

❤

1L student here, preparing my brief and saying thank you for your video...lol

Let's refer to the modern death penalty, “1976”.. Very next segment, Slavery and the south..

Germans were the victims. Look up a documentary called Hellstorm

Then what should happen when the subject judge, out of defiance and spite, ignores the obvious facts and refuses to recuse themselves?

its all greek to me

Good Understanding in his lectures ALWAYS Thank You Sir .

How is the second one a paradox. There is no preference, it is simply a tie. There is no repeat of any candidate in the first, second, or even third column. 3 voters voting for 3 candidates, which means it does not matter what candidate is more preferred against one other candidate if you were voting for just those two against each other. It is a vote for 3 candidates between 3 voters and it just so happened that nobody agreed on a first, second, or third candidate. It would simply be a tie. End of story. No need to complicate things that don’t need to be complicated. In a normal society somebody is bound to agree, there are more than 3 voters, and there are even more than 3 candidates. So, this would NEVER EVEN HAPPEN in todays world. This could also happen with 4 and 4 and many other numbers.

mocne

Great video - needs gender bias

This professor is amazing! I'm study classical music in this Channel and I'm so grateful for it! God bless this such amazing teacher❤❤❤ greetings from Brazil🇧🇷

Amazing that someone at Yale, and Yale itself, would put out for public consumption a presentation in which the presenter simply reads, verbatim, the Power Point slides and calls it a day -- for God's sake. Learn how to do a presentation using Power Point appropriately -- bullet points. Your audience can read the same as you can. You want to bore them and lose them, do this kind of thing. I'd think at a community college a professor would know better. Learn how to engage, to teach, to impart the importance of what you teach. So much is wrong about this.

This is sickening to hear

Clearly doesn't know what he is talking about

Nothing written on the screen says anything about perjury

Ex-ante versus Ex-post analyses. Juries think from an ex-post analysis. More likely to have mercy since the problem has already happened. Judges think more from the ex-post analysis because they have to consider the decision's effects toward the future, that is, with respect to future instances of the same type of event (prospective disputes). Legislators and regulators naturally apply prospective rules so they will apply ex ante perspectives for the most part but can also take into account ex post factors such as fiscal burdens or social effects of mass incarceration. Legal system uses a mixed ex ante and ex post system.

Normative debates relate to what the law should be. Positive discussions relate to what IS the law. Holmes: life of the law has been experience, not the syllogism. Discussion about the is/ought fallacy and Hume's law. Important to state normative implications of your positions. For example, "efficiently minded jurists" would prefer X over Y. Thinking about normative, positive dichotomy helps uncover what lies beneath someone's interest in studying a particular phenomenon.

One distinction that is useful to keep in mind is that between rules and standards. Rules provide clear guidelines and a specific bar (such as 40 MPH). Standards are fuzzier (such as reasonable care) and provide less predictability because they are subject to broad interpretation by courts or other authorities. They can be used in conjunction and they are used as a continuum not as a dichotomy. Example: rules or standards for price setting (reasonable price) versus quantity (0). Useful tool to analyze and critique cases. When should we prefer one over the other?

Introduction to basic analytical tools needed to excel in law school with an emphasis on economics. Useful for a head start before starting 1L ( which is my case). The tools allow you to understand the structure of legal rules and of legal arguments. Bonus tip: visit the library and know how to get around.

Black panthers were some of the known usuarists of vices/torture devices...plauging hebrews jews christians and travellers...universal warfare is coming and may already be here...

Any case law for above mentioned subject

Voting is a right because everyone else has a duty not to interfere with my right to vote.

4:57

Trump's judge is clearly bias

I am Yale school law thank you for a video KZbin

Very interesting. Who is the professor?

How you can be so good in your teaching, dear professor! Every statement is filled with years of wisdom. Thank you for these lectures. A huge admirer of your work.

Anyone knows how the picture showed in 7:16 was drawed?

How can Judges be impartial in UK when Barristers and Judges have llink to their Chambers and Freemasonry? So appeal system does not work as they all practice nepotism!!