| | |  | This is the Conversation Forum for Talking Point: Trial by Jury
<< Ancient Privilege
need for people >> | |
| | | Subject: Jury Selection Bothers Me
Posted Aug 21, 2003 by BreadStick Assassin
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
3
  | | But the initial point of two separate juries coming to two different conclusions is still valid. If you have a good lawyer (and you usually do), he/she/it will try to sway the jury with emotion and other such. I don't really care if mommy didn't give the poor serial killer enough attention growing up. If there's evidence that he killed a dozen people, then he's going to be put in prison (or put to death if he's in a state that so warrants) for the appropriate amount of time. Just because he and his lawyer can put together a good sob story doesn't mean that he should go free, or spend some time in a state institution until he's "cured, what a miracle" and released.
We'd have to find some way to eliminate the sympathy for both sides. I don't want a prosecution groupie handing out maximum sentences because they like hearing bars click shut either.
|
| | | Subject: Jury Selection Bothers Me
Posted Aug 21, 2003 by Dengarm
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
4
| | Lawyers on each side automaticly pick off the people the other side would want on thier jury. They have a unspoken agreement to let as many stupid or gullable people on thier jury as possible. This makes thier job much easier because whatever they say will be believed by the jury unless the opposing lawyer somehow pokes a hole through that arguement. If you don't want to be selected for jury duty appear as smart as possible. Sit and wait with a good book and your odds of being selected go down greatly.
|
| | | Subject: Jury Selection Bothers Me
Posted Aug 25, 2003 by CMaster
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
7
| | The problem with juries is that Lawyers have learned how to make them ask 'How high' when the lawyer says jump. The problem with other systems is that it comes down to one or three unaccountable persons making descisions about guilt (not normally innocence) on their own opinions.
Both juries, judges and magistrates are often essentially lied to through forensics and statisitcs as they dont have the traiuning to nderstand what it really means.
|
|  |
| | | Subject: Jury Selection Bothers Me
Posted Aug 25, 2003 by Pandapig
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
9
| | Well, I've served as foreman on two juries and most of the jury members weren't rocket scientists but just decent, sensible members of the public who were prefectly capable of understanding the evidence and coming to the right conclusion (we ended up with one acquittal and one conviction BTW so it's not like we were all knee-jerk liberals or hang-em-all types). In fact we had some pretty vociferous discussions over the evidence, asked the judge lots of questions about points of law and made sure that the whole issue was thoroughly covered. If the trial had been held by 3 magistrates instead of a jury, I'll bet it would have been over in half the time and a routine conviction would have been handed down. If I were ever on trial I would want it to be in front of a jury of fellow citizens who I could trust to take their time and consider all the evidence.
All these proposals about doing away with jury trials are all about saving money and have nothing to do with justice.
|
| | | Subject: Jury Selection Bothers Me
Posted Aug 27, 2003 by Reddyfreddy
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
12
| | I sat on the jury of a financial case once, many years ago. I don't think it was hugely complex (not one of the Guiness/Blue Arrow year-long affairs), but, to my mind, a relatively simple "was the guy being actively dishonest or not"-type questions.
At the outset, the judge explained the law and what the prosecution would have to prove to gain a conviction. I estimate that 4 members of the jury used this as the basis of their decision.
I don't think it is necessary to be a "trained professional" lawyer or accountant to be competent to try a case like this. An IQ test would have done the trick.
|
| | | Subject: Jury Selection Bothers Me
Posted Sep 1, 2003 by logicus tracticus philosophicus : a parasite of no consequence:
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
20
| | these days dna evidence can be manufactured i:e any competent scientist would be able to manufacture synthetic dna resembleing defendent a or b cloneing techniches ect all any one would need would be sample dna fron "host" culter some in lab and bobs your uncle so to speak, ok it may seem elaborate and expensive but technoligy is fast advanceing to a stage where more and more relience is made on "suposed" irefuteable evidence such as dna and less and less on investagive evidence gathered by talking and obsevational unscientific means,the jury system may be unscientific but in most jury trials "body lanquage" will give a better picture in most cases and for the most part we humans inturpet signals automaticly without knowledge of the whys or wherefores.On occaisions you will get strange verdicts but on closer examination i feel individual prejudices held by a small proportion of jurors wether knowillingly or unknowillingly would have swayed the result well thats how i see it
|
| |
|
|
   
Conversation list
Most of the content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of any external sites referenced. In the event that you consider anything on this page to be in breach of the site's House Rules, please click on the relevant button to alert our Moderation Team. |
Home
