Specifically where it relates to violent crime.

Essentially it is supposed to make statements like the following a rule violation:

“If someone murdered [fictional person] they would totally get acquitted because any jury would just nullify the charges.”

While the following sentence would not be a violation of TOS:

“The murderer of UHC CEO Brian Thompson should get acquitted via Jury Nullification because [reasons] and this is super dope.”

The first example could be read as a call to violence, while the 2nd is not calling for a crime.

As I understand it “All future jurors in money laundring cases should nullify, because tax evasion is… like… super cool” would also be legal, because money laundring is not a violent crime.

Unfortunately, the only hardware component you can actually download is RAM. And increased hardware prices are going to be the primary cost factor.

I generally agree, but there are two addenda.

First: Even the worst should be burried with dignity, because their behaviour is not the standard by which we measure our actions. Nobody is so evil that they can take our will to be decent human beings. So we do the right thing (decent burrial) to spite evil.

Second: With dignity is not the same as “with reverence” or “with honor”. In many cultures criminals are denied certain parts of funeral rites (like processions, official or acknowledged mourning periods). This reinforces social norms to the living (don’t do the bad thing or you will be shunned by society) and can also prevent retraumatizing their victims. The most common form of this is not allowing to have their gravesite marked. This is done so that their family may have a place of grief (the unmarked grave) but to prevent the grave from becoming either a shrine to their followers or a target of defilement by the victims. A fairly well known example of the last part is Adolf Hitler who was properly buried in an unknown location and then a parking lot was put over the area with the possible grave sites.

“credible reports” (but low confidence) of some employees of UNRWA participating in the attack. No evidence at all that UNRWA had partnered with Hamas or supported the attacks.

What that means is “somebody said that some people that work for UNRWA also participated in the attacks but we have found no proof either way.”