RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial

RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Termyn8or -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/24/2010 3:22:32 PM)
"The rule of law is not something to be overturned lightly." So what then ? Forget about juries ? No thanks. As imperfect as it may be the alternative is worse. T

rulemylife -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/24/2010 3:22:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen It is always wise to remember that jury nullification is what kept many Klansmen from facing prison for killing civil rights workers in the 50's and 60's. And O.J., whether it was because they thought he was being targeted because he was black or whether they were swayed by his celebrity status the jury ignored the preponderance of evidence against him.

Termyn8or -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/24/2010 3:27:55 PM)
"the jury ignored the preponderance of evidence against him." No, they took almost everything he had. Preponderance of the evidence os for civil trials. The burden of proof is higher in a criminal trial - beyond a reasonable doubt. It didn't say a 71.667 % doubt or a 3/5ths doubt, a reasonable doubt. That is one problem, with not having fully informed juries. And the pettiness of some people will convict unjustly because of prejudice, whether it is for or against a race, gender, creed or even the law itself. But without juries, we have almost nothing. T

DomKen -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/24/2010 3:38:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "The rule of law is not something to be overturned lightly." So what then ? Forget about juries ? No thanks. As imperfect as it may be the alternative is worse. T I never said that. My point is that jury nullification should be a rae occurence not something that is argued for routinely by defence attornies.

rulemylife -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/24/2010 3:38:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "The rule of law is not something to be overturned lightly." So what then ? Forget about juries ? No thanks. As imperfect as it may be the alternative is worse. T No one said anything about abandoning the jury system, the question is whether nullification helps or hurts the goal of justice.

Termyn8or -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/24/2010 4:09:31 PM)
" never said that" No you didn't, but how many alternatives are there ? Take a hypothetical example real quick, we are talking about a sixteenth of an ounce. I don't buy ten dollar bags but it sure sounds like one. Possesion is illegal, and regardless of what I think someone is charged with it as a crime. I would acquit on that basis, the law is wrong, but that's me. Let's move on to someone else on the same jury, who obeys what they say and convicts just like a computer could based on probabilities and formulae. However in this case the penalty for simple possesion of that dime bag is 25 years to life ? The hell you say, yes, nobody would be so much of a prick to lock someone up for simple possesion for that long. But there was a time in Texas when you could get five years if they found a seed in your ash tray. As I'm sure you know, appeals based on the law's unfairness are as irrelevant as the repeal of the law. An appeal is solely based on whether the facts were correct or not, as well as what evidence was excluded or included improperly. The convict is sentenced by the statute extant at the time. Even new factual evidence doesn't guarantee an appeal. Y'know really, if guilty as hell and trying to get out of it on a technicality, one is better off with a judge than a jury. But a judge would never nullify, he goes by the book, no matter what it says. T

Hippiekinkster -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/24/2010 7:43:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen It is always wise to remember that jury nullification is what kept many Klansmen from facing prison for killing civil rights workers in the 50's and 60's. And O.J., whether it was because they thought he was being targeted because he was black or whether they were swayed by his celebrity status the jury ignored the preponderance of evidence against him. That's not the same thing.

rulemylife -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/25/2010 5:57:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen It is always wise to remember that jury nullification is what kept many Klansmen from facing prison for killing civil rights workers in the 50's and 60's. And O.J., whether it was because they thought he was being targeted because he was black or whether they were swayed by his celebrity status the jury ignored the preponderance of evidence against him. That's not the same thing. Telling me it's not the same thing doesn't give me much of a clue what you are referring to. If you are talking about O.J. specifically, I should have qualified my statement by saying it was my opinion that the jury ignored the facts and ruled based on their image of Simpson as the football, movie, and television star who couldn't have possibly done such a thing. I shouldn't have used such a contentious example because I don't want to get in a debate about his trial. But if what you are saying is that nullification only occurs when the jurors question the law then you are wrong by definition. Jury Nullification \| LII / Legal Information Institute A jury's knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about some social issue that is larger than the case itself, or because the result dictated by law is contrary to the jury's sense of justice, morality, or fairness. Jury nullification is a discretionary act, and is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury. It is considered to be inconsistent with the jury's duty to return a verdict based solely on the law and the facts of the case. The jury does not have a right to nullification, and counsel is not permitted to present the concept of jury nullification to the jury. However, jury verdicts of acquittal are unassailable even where the verdict is inconsistent with the weight of the evidence and instruction of the law.

MrRodgers -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/25/2010 6:53:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen It is always wise to remember that jury nullification is what kept many Klansmen from facing prison for killing civil rights workers in the 50's and 60's. And O.J., whether it was because they thought he was being targeted because he was black or whether they were swayed by his celebrity status the jury ignored the preponderance of evidence against him. That's not the same thing. Telling me it's not the same thing doesn't give me much of a clue what you are referring to. If you are talking about O.J. specifically, I should have qualified my statement by saying it was my opinion that the jury ignored the facts and ruled based on their image of Simpson as the football, movie, and television star who couldn't have possibly done such a thing. I shouldn't have used such a contentious example because I don't want to get in a debate about his trial. But if what you are saying is that nullification only occurs when the jurors question the law then you are wrong by definition. Jury Nullification \| LII / Legal Information Institute A jury's knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about some social issue that is larger than the case itself, or because the result dictated by law is contrary to the jury's sense of justice, morality, or fairness. Jury nullification is a discretionary act, and is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury. It is considered to be inconsistent with the jury's duty to return a verdict based solely on the law and the facts of the case. The jury does not have a right to nullification, and counsel is not permitted to present the concept of jury nullification to the jury. However, jury verdicts of acquittal are unassailable even where the verdict is inconsistent with the weight of the evidence and instruction of the law. You would be quite correct. The entire process of jury nullification though is in effect...up to the jury in their deliberations and could even be in the mind of one juror. Some legal philosophers and I happen to agree with them, have said that jury nullification is the last vanguard of a democracy to protect the unjustly prospecuted. Some of them also claim that any factor prior to a case going to the jury is subject to the judgment...of the jury which is always empowered to vote their conscience and there is nothing anybody can do about it.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/25/2010 11:16:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "The rule of law is not something to be overturned lightly." So what then ? Forget about juries ? No thanks. As imperfect as it may be the alternative is worse. T Wow, you actually believe that it is the jury's role to overturn law, and not to decide guilt or innocence under the existing laws? What fucking country do you live in?

Termyn8or -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/26/2010 2:36:27 AM)
I would ask you that same question willie. Think about EXACTLY why juries exist. You want to move to Singapore and get thrown in jail for spitting on the sidewalk ? Unjust laws are rendered unenforcable due to juries refusal to convict. If they made it a law that if your screen door closer is not in proper working order you are subject to the death penalty should I vote to convict and send you to the electric chair ? A judge won't nullify, in fact cannot nullify. Your answer will speak volumes, but your post already has. You think they are the boss and we must obey, in that, you are completely wrong. The jury exists to enable the people to power. That is what this country is all about, or was...... And contrary to what some believe, many other countries have juries. Why ? What possible reason would there be to have a jury if not for this empowerment of the commoner to prevent an injustice, no matter how well proscribed in "law", from happening ? Is a jury just for show ? Is it just fun ? Are those tax dollars spent just vacuumed up from the hallways of the courthouse ? Hell no. The jury is there EXACTLY to nullify bad laws. Remember the sedition act. T

rulemylife -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/26/2010 6:40:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "the jury ignored the preponderance of evidence against him." No, they took almost everything he had. Preponderance of the evidence os for civil trials. The burden of proof is higher in a criminal trial - beyond a reasonable doubt. It didn't say a 71.667 % doubt or a 3/5ths doubt, a reasonable doubt. That is one problem, with not having fully informed juries. And the pettiness of some people will convict unjustly because of prejudice, whether it is for or against a race, gender, creed or even the law itself. Well thank you Term, but I am aware of the differing standards of proof. I was using the phrase generically to mean there was enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. In regard to your last sentence, that is exactly the reason a jury should only be considering how the law applies to the facts and evidence presented in a case.

Termyn8or -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/26/2010 5:47:24 PM)
My last sentence is indeed one of the biggest problems with the system, at least that part of the system. The other side of the coin. There will be problems and mistakes made, but to constrain the rights of the jury is not the answer. In most cases, with reasonable people it works fairly well. With reasonable and just laws it could work beautifully. A jury is an intentional limit to government power. Despite the occasional injustice, it must be preserved. T

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/26/2010 8:21:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or A jury is an intentional limit to government power. T Beep, wrong again.

Termyn8or -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/26/2010 9:04:02 PM)
Nope, I am right. You want to throw due process, WHICH INCLUDES A JURY out the window, I hope they give you the electric chair for not keeping that screen door in proper working order. You must have people around the clock watching it so that it does not lapse into disrepair. Obey the L-A-W sheeple or else. Also if you are ever charged with a crome you didn't commit, you surely wouldn't want a jury I assume. T

DomKen -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/27/2010 2:27:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Also if you are ever charged with a crome you didn't commit, you surely wouldn't want a jury I assume. Juries convict innocent people all the time.

Termyn8or -> RE: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Trial (12/27/2010 3:35:52 PM)
All the time ? At the very least that's a poor choice of words. The only way it's true is either that jury trials go on all hours every day in the world, and with the volume of trials, it happens [practically] constantly. The other way it could be true is that juries always convict the innocent. The latter certainly can't be true, and even if it was, no proof would be enough. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. But to know if someone is really guilty is almost impossible. The appeal doesn't offer much proof. What does ? A buddy of mine was convicted and got acquiited on appeal because of some technical problem with the evidence. The fact is he was guilty. Period, I know he was guilty. So in a case like that, the successful appeal proves nothing. I'm sure that there are errors the other way around as well. The guilty going free as well as convictions of the innocent. But is a judge any better ? Maybe, but at least in Ohio, one must put in a jury demand at a pretrial hearing. It is up to the defendant. Let's see here. You are a juror. You have a married couple who engages in anal sex, which is illegal in that jurisdiction. They have DNA evidence and everything, say, because she had a doctor's appointment the next day. The doctor in his professional capacity is required to report the "crime" and does so. They are both arrested. The evidence is clear, absolutely no shadow of a doubt that they did it. What do you do ? The fact is, if you are guilty of a real crime, create a victim and you want to get off somehow, you get a good lawyer who will examine the whole investigation, chain of evidence and so forth. One little mistake and you might get acquittal. However you might not with a jury. The defese lawyer's job is to bring any improprieties to light, and a judge WILL disregard improper evidence. Based on the remainder of the evidence he may convict, but would not want to be overturned on appeal. A jury would not be familiar with the rules concerning the chain of evidence and the method(s) of gathering. On the other hand if the law is bad, against anal sex for example, or some other action where the government simply does not belong, a jury would be better. Can you imagine a lawyer questioning potential jururs in such a case ? Assuming noone lies, anyone who engages in anal sex would have to take the fifth. They would be disqualified. Of the others who don't, what stops the prosecution from asking them if the government has the right to regulate consensual behavior of adults in private ? Answer no, and you're outta there. They already have enough power, and judges convict the innocent as well I'm sure. The question here is whether you are fighting the charge or the law. Judges also acquit the guilty. None of us could ever come up with adequate proof, but mathematically, it must happen. How often would be practically impossible to prove. There are exceptions, of course we've seen rape cases overturned after an innocent Man sits in a cell for ten years or longer. But then if a sexual predator is set free, that has to be at least as bad. Of course in an anal sex case you could pull a potential juror with the "mind" set of Fred Phelps. But who's to say the judge isn't of a similar ilk ? With a jury at least there are twelve, not one. All it takes is one to refuse to convict and "hang" the jury. Most people who seek power do so to impose their will upon others. For some it's gimme money, for some it's I'm gonna get rid of these N______s/F__s/potheads/Christians(or any religion)/rivals(of any kind). Do you trust a judge to better have overcome his innate opinions about any group of people ? Is it better to trust one, or to hope to trust one of twelve ? People are screwed up, the system is screwed up but people make it worse. Long ago I took a traffic case to trial. The charge was going 80 in a 55 zone. We attacked the radar, the tires on the police car and everything but I lost anyway. The fact is that I was really going 90, not 80. You think I was going to mention that ? There is no way to make this system perfect. If we are to take the human factor out of the system, then we might as well fire all the judges and install computers, like IBM's Watson. Do we want that ? T

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125