Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
tl;dw he had a “flat affect” after his daughter died because he was autistic, not because he was a murderer
I’m still stuck on the part where we convict people due to their emotions and not due to evidence that they committed the crime. Smiling during a robbery is not conducive to actually performing said robbery, so why is it admissible in court? The judge shouldn’t need to make a call on this at all.
I’ve seen a lot of “the victim was insufficiently distressed therefore they must be lying” in spousal abuse cases. Performance is apparently a huge part of how much you’re believed in court
Not even going into autism, there are so many misconceptions around what constitutes an appropriate reaction to death.
It’s fucked up to think of the people tortured and murdered because they didn’t react to tragedy in a socially acceptable way.
And we somehow trust judges in the US to make an accurate call on this?
I’m still stuck on the part where we convict people due to their emotions and not due to evidence that they committed the crime. Smiling during a robbery is not conducive to actually performing said robbery, so why is it admissible in court? The judge shouldn’t need to make a call on this at all.
Honestly, it’s staggering to think of all of the systemic ableism.
I’ve seen a lot of “the victim was insufficiently distressed therefore they must be lying” in spousal abuse cases. Performance is apparently a huge part of how much you’re believed in court
Alternatively, “The victim was overly distressed and therefore was lying.”
Western legal systems tend to favor Morton’s Fork.
Isn’t a flat affect considered typical nowadays after a traumatic event?
But there are always people who know better than scientific research.
This is what happens when an entire population is educated by Hollywood.