the other thing is that like... respectfully. antipsych may not have much to do with your life. that's fine. prison abolition does not have much to do with my life -- except as those two things intertwine institutionally. the prison system isn't one I have to face.
but it would not be appropriate for me to enter those conversations and be like "well what about when the cops helped me find my dog, who will help me find my dog" you know? like. or at the very least if I did that, people whose day to day lives have been horribly impacted by the prison system would be deeply justified in telling me to sit the fuck down, lol
174 notes
·
View notes
yesterday I had to explain to my caregiver that age regression isn't always fun and sweet and safe.
sometimes it's scary. sometimes it's ugly. sometimes it's impure.
though it can be sweet, ultimately age regression is a coping mechanism. it is a form of therapy. it takes work and energy. agere is how I'm rewiring my brain to know that I'm safe and okay now. it's how I teach myself to be a kid, since I didn't get to be one back then. it isn't always a pretty process. it's overwhelming and exhausting.
and that's okay :). age regression is there for you. you can heal and you can grow. we're all on this journey together.
91 notes
·
View notes
I've been thinking about the Aaron trial a LOT and kinda fell into a rabbit hole about it and thing is. Aaron is guilty. Like 100% guilty. The prosecution can't prove first degree murder but they don't need to because they can charge him with 2nd degree, aka "murder of passion". It was a charged moment and Aaron responded by killing the dude. Yes he deserved it and yes it's still murder, with considerable jail time.
There are 3 ways for Aaron to get off here (not including Moriyama interference). One, jury nullification. The jury basically decides that yes he did it BUT he shouldn't go to jail for it so we're gonna vote as if we're not convinced he did it. Incredibly rare but legal. Two, Aaron's lawyer successfully argues that Aaron was acting in self defense on Andrew's behalf. They could potentially try to have Drake charged with SA and CSA posthumously, and use the details of that trial as evidence in Aaron's. Three, and this ties into 2, JAG (military legal branch) tells the SC courts they don't want a public trial. From here it becomes internal politics, and might result in a plea deal in exchange for the whole thing getting shoved under the rug.
it seems to me like jury nullification is one of those old laws that don't really hold up in a modern setting, like if you suggested it now, i don't know if they'd actually go forward with it?
the best i've come up with is that he's aquitted for accidental death or self defence and the jury are swayed by andrew, neil and higgins' testimonies, or he's found either guilty or not guilty of involuntary manslaughter. just throwing some random thoughts out into the world. (let's disregard first degree murder.)
voluntary manslaughter in SC can't be given without "heat of passion and sufficient legal provocation" present. "The heat of passion refers to the defendant experiencing some type of uncontrollable emotion, such as rage or terror. The heat of passion does not excuse a homicide, but it does remove malice. Legal provocation refers to circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control."
IM NOT A LAWYER but i think it might be hard to prove this - it happened SO quickly that there's not enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt to prove that it was an intentional act of passion with reasonable provocation.
involuntary manslaughter can't be given without "criminal negligence" or essentially a reckless or hazardous disregard for safety etcetc. in SC code of laws it says "criminal negligence is defined as the reckless disregard of the safety of others. A person charged with the crime of involuntary manslaughter may be convicted only upon a showing of criminal negligence as defined in this section."
AGAIN IM NOT A LAWYER but i think there's probably ways to argue that there was no criminal negligence on aarons behalf because it wasn't technically reckless. i think aarons lawyers would argue that it wasn't a homicide at all but was an accident because aarons behaviour wasn't technically reckless (in some ways). regardless even if he was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter there's no minimum sentence for it in SC so it's possible he'd avoid going to jail at all because of his character/how unlikely it is he'll reoffend/his prospects in life/his clean record and all that. he'd have parole terms and probably some community service and a fine or something but i think he'd easily avoid jail time even if he was found guilty.
he could still possibly be aquitted on the question of whether ANY category of murder happened beyond a reasonable doubt. the prosecution would have to prove that aaron intentionally swung the racquet with or without intent to kill. i think there's an argument there for an accidental death - which would definitely make this ask even longer so i won't get into my NOT LAWYER thoughts on how/why.
i'm not saying andrew and neil WOULD commit perjury. but they WERE the only people in the room when it happened, and if they can't say that for certain aaron swung the racquet at drake then there's a doubt there about whether it was homicide or not. nobody is denying the murder occured - but the prosecution HAVE to prove that aaron was WILLFULLY negligent and that led to drake's death. just a thought.
54 notes
·
View notes
has anyone played mazm: the phantom of the opera... i just bought it on my switch bc it was less than five dollars and the art is cute. idk if i like it as a game tho?
more than anything it feels closer to a visual novel than a game? which is... fine i guess, just not what i was expecting. though i think if i wasnt hyperfixated on poto i wouldnt be satisfied w this lol
i also assume it follows the book?? not that ive finished the book yet so i cant be certain but charas like sorelli and jammes and philippe are there? also raoul is so cute fkfhdkxbskdns
42 notes
·
View notes
I hope that everyone who's mad about the kid getting a life sentence for hacking isn't just mad that the "danger to yourself or others" criteria can be weaponized by corporations, but also that "danger to yourself or others" can be weaponized at all.
no, hacking corporations does not make you a danger to others and it's complete bullshit that courts can claim so in sentencing you.
but also no one should be involuntarily institutionalized due to subjective risk assessment, period. and no one should be involuntarily institutionalized at all.
24 notes
·
View notes
me: man i really love that mind reading isnt real so i dont have to worry about anyone knowing exactly what im thinking about
ocd: so about that
28 notes
·
View notes