PhillyKev 0 #26 November 11, 2004 One glaringly obvious thing about the first post in this thread is that he's using not guilty verdicts to try and illustrate that the system isn't working. I say it proves the opposite. The system was set up with the knowledge that no system would be perfect and that it is better to err in favor of the individual rather than the state. Would you rather that all guilty parties who were found not guilty in court be jailed, and an equal number of innocent people be jailed in addition? What's better? Some guilty people going free in order to do our best to make sure no innocent people are jailed.....or.....Some innocent people are jailed in order to do our best to make sure that no guilty people go free? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tigra 0 #27 November 11, 2004 Oh, see there you go with that radical subversive left wing liberal logic again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #28 November 11, 2004 QuoteOh, see there you go with that radical subversive left wing liberal logic again! Yea whats wrong with you don't spoil the fun. Caught stealing Ist time chop off hand. Caught stealing 2nd time chop off other hand Try running away chop off leg. No workeee cut off battery cables on wheel chair. Suspected of Killing someone let victims family carry punisment. Don't need no stinkin trials jails none of that stuff. The "look" shoot, stab, or run them over. DivorseSue? kick ass R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MNM604 0 #29 November 12, 2004 This crap goes on in every trial. Its just the High Profile cases that allow everyone else to actually see what happens in court. It is nothing about who is right or who is wrong, its all about the game, and plays it better. It is so much easier to get one out of twelve to doubt, then to convince twleve with a circus. Besides, even if the defense loses, they still get appeals, and other courses to take to get the case thrown out. I agree that jurors should be allowed to have all the information, including prior convictions etc. I also do not believe it is the fault of jurors, it is the system that is mishap. As they say, its not justice, its just court... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #30 November 12, 2004 Agreed "The system isn't perfect but its the best one we got" Most people know this, but the election is over, SC needs something new to argue/discuss & agree on. It's fun to disagree with the reguler guy's in SC. There serious about this crap and spelling too.R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #31 November 12, 2004 QuoteIt is so much easier to get one out of twelve to doubt, then to convince twleve with a circus. Common misconception is that you get a not guilty verdict if you convince one out of 12 to doubt. You have to convince all 12 to doubt, otherwise you get a hung jury. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #32 November 12, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt is so much easier to get one out of twelve to doubt, then to convince twleve with a circus. Common misconception is that you get a not guilty verdict if you convince one out of 12 to doubt. You have to convince all 12 to doubt, otherwise you get a hung jury. That's pretty close to a victory when your client is guilty as sin. Two hung juries would pretty much get him off. Prosecution does get to revamp their case strategy, but then so does the defense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #33 November 12, 2004 The problem with your plan of having a few people be the ones who pass judgment on others is that people can be corrupted. Do you really want a tribunal of people deciding your fate? Think about it....A select class that passes judgement on people...Sounds like Royalty. The system has problems...But it is still the best system out there."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #34 November 12, 2004 QuoteThe problem with your plan of having a few people be the ones who pass judgment on others is that people can be corrupted. Do you really want a tribunal of people deciding your fate? Think about it....A select class that passes judgement on people...Sounds like Royalty. . No, it sounds like Guantanamo. Royalty passing judgment is SO 16th Century.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #35 November 12, 2004 QuoteNo, it sounds like Guantanamo. EXACTLY...Would you want to be tried in Gitmo? QuoteRoyalty passing judgment is SO 16th Century. Or Iraq a couple of years ago."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #36 November 12, 2004 QuoteProsecution does get to revamp their case strategy, but then so does the defense. Back a few years ago when one of the major networks had cameras following DAs, defense attorneys, and defendents for a 'reality' show one of the DAs mentioned that their success rate the 2nd time around was extremely high. Maybe one of our resident lawyers can back that up or refute it. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #37 November 12, 2004 I could see how in a criminal case the second time around would be easier. Now, I may be wrong on the criminal side, but on the civil you can talk to the jury afterward. Of course, in many instances the prosecution has put out all of its goodies, giving the defense more opportunities to plug holes in them. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #38 November 12, 2004 QuoteQuoteNo, it sounds like Guantanamo. EXACTLY...Would you want to be tried in Gitmo? QuoteRoyalty passing judgment is SO 16th Century. Or Iraq a couple of years ago. Saddam Hussein was a KING? I thought he was a murdering despot (at least, from the time he stopped being OUR ally).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #39 November 12, 2004 QuoteNow, I may be wrong on the criminal side, but on the civil you can talk to the jury afterward. Yes, you can in a criminal trial as well. I spent about 2 hours talking to the defense attorney after I had hung the jury...and no real time speaking with the prosecutor. The prosecutor came over to me and shook my hand, thanking me for following my convictions and not letting the situations in the jury room sway me (and it got physically confrontive in there....) and told me specifically that "you are the reason the system works." I thought that was very classy of him. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #40 November 12, 2004 QuoteSaddam Hussein was a KING? He was not elected. Quote thought he was a murdering despot You finaly got it!"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #41 November 12, 2004 Quote QuoteProsecution does get to revamp their case strategy, but then so does the defense. Back a few years ago when one of the major networks had cameras following DAs, defense attorneys, and defendents for a 'reality' show one of the DAs mentioned that their success rate the 2nd time around was extremely high. Maybe one of our resident lawyers can back that up or refute it. They don't retry the iffy cases, and they don't get to court in the first place without either a strong case or too much political publicity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #42 November 12, 2004 QuoteQuoteSaddam Hussein was a KING? He was not elected. Neither was I. Does that make me a KING too?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #43 November 12, 2004 >Does that make me a KING too? Not unless the cops beat you up and tape it. (Or you get some streets named after you.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #44 November 12, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteSaddam Hussein was a KING? He was not elected. Neither was I. Does that make me a KING too? Dang, prof, you sound downright lawyerly with that comment. Take the statement, toss aside all reasonable inferences and context, and answer the question. I take that as a challenge. What introductory physics textbooks do you recommend? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #45 November 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSaddam Hussein was a KING? He was not elected. Neither was I. Does that make me a KING too? Dang, prof, you sound downright lawyerly with that comment. Take the statement, toss aside all reasonable inferences and context, and answer the question. I take that as a challenge. What introductory physics textbooks do you recommend? I thought it was downright professorly When you've been dealing with college students for 35 years you pick up certain skills. Most everyone uses Halliday, Resnick & Walker as intro. to physics text. Not that it's any good. It's been dumbed down a lot.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #46 November 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe problem with your plan of having a few people be the ones who pass judgment on others is that people can be corrupted. Do you really want a tribunal of people deciding your fate? Think about it....A select class that passes judgement on people...Sounds like Royalty. . No, it sounds like Guantanamo. Royalty passing judgment is SO 16th Century. Officers (some) think, act, expect, and demand to be treated like royalty. Some officers are the real deal leaders and managers. R.I.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
