Juries and Jurors

[Flash]

Really? So an openly racist juror is okay in the trial of a person of color?

How come every fucking thing with you Moon Bats is always about race?

Grow up!

 

[Flash]

I actually have a job and a business to run. I've really got better things to do.

And before you go whining "civic duty" or some such bullshit. 11 years in the Army. I've done my bit for God and Country, thanks.

But yet you are still a stupid uneducated confused Moon Bat.

 

[pknopp]

You just agreed that our so called justice system needs an overhaul.

And how about the number of actual inn cent people who have served decades in prison or the innocent people who have been executed as proof there is a problem?

Many times that happens because those presenting the evidence lie. It's not because we don't have professional jurors.

For years no one has ever held those who lie accountable so there was no reàson for them to stop.

 

[Blues Man]

It won’t work, the jurors will be paid by the government that has a vested interest in convicting defendants. Jurors who don’t convict won’t be called back. The jury will be simply an arm of the prosecution. Plus to make your system legal you’d have to amend the constitution. It calls for a jury of your peers, not a jury of professionals.

Public defenders get paid by the government too.

And what's so great about a jury of your so called peers?

And if a jury is supposed to be a person's peers why do we see all White juries in the trial of a Black guy?

The average person just isn't sophisticated enough to grasp much of the evidence that is very technical or involves hard science.

 

[Blues Man]

Ok. But the problem you run into is the cases you would object to.

In your scenario people with a science background would be eligible to be jurors. Ok. California sues saying that pollution from autos and burning fossil fuels is poisoning the air and water.

The Jury is made up of your professional science based jurors. And they all know Global Warming is real. So the Judge orders the United States to stop burning fossil fuels.

When has there been a jury trial regarding global warming?

 

[Blues Man]

Many times that happens because those presenting the evidence lie. It's not because we don't have professional jurors.

For years no one has ever held those who lie accountable so there was no reàson for them to stop.

And the jurors are so ignorant of the law and of evidentiary procedures, forensics, medical sciences and technical issues that they can't discern fact from bullshit.

 

[pknopp]

And the jurors are so ignorant of the law and of evidentiary procedures, forensics, medical sciences and technical issues that they can't discern fact from bullshit.

LOL, we are going to hire tens of thousand of Einstein's? People who are experts in everything? LOL

Solutions that are not solutions are not solutions. Why is it not better to simply hold those who lie accountable?

 

[Blues Man]

LOL, we are going to hire tens of thousand of Einstein's? People who are experts in everything? LOL

Solutions that are not solutions are not solutions. Why is it not better to simply hold those who lie accountable?

No you hire a wide range of people with a wide range of knowledge and you pull from the pool the people most qualified to examine the evidence that will be presented.

If a case relies heavily on medical testimony you pull more jurors that are knowledgeable in the health , medicine and science fields.

If a case will rely heavily on evidence of a technical nature such as computer sciences or engineering you pull more jurors with those qualifications

If a case will involve exhaustive forensic accounting you pull.......

Why is that not better than a bunch of average people who can't understand the evidence?

 

[pknopp]

No you hire a wide range of people with a wide range of knowledge and you pull from the pool the people most qualified to examine the evidence that will be presented.

If a case relies heavily on medical testimony you pull more jurors that are knowledgeable in the health , medicine and science fields.

If a case will rely heavily on evidence of a technical nature such as computer sciences or engineering you pull more jurors with those qualifications

If a case will involve exhaustive forensic accounting you pull.......

Why is that not better than a bunch of average people who can't understand the evidence?

Yeah boy. Hiring medical experts to sit on a jury. Always on call and they will appreciate the $20 they make. As I said before, solutions that are not solutions are not solutions.

Just charge those who lie.

 

[Opie]

I am not calling for no juries. I am saying a panel of professional jurors with knowledge of the law, forensics and any other technical or scientific evidence who can all cryptically and skeptically examine evidence would render better decisions than the average person off the street.

The beauty of being judged by your PEERS

 

[SavannahMann]

When has there been a jury trial regarding global warming?

Not the point. Which way would your scientific professional jury go?

 

[Blues Man]

Not the point. Which way would your scientific professional jury go?

It wouldn't "go" any way because there will never be a trail in the American justice system where Global Warming is the defendant.

 

[Blues Man]

The beauty of being judged by your PEERS

You mean people that don't understand the technical testimonies of experts and are easily swayed by emotion?

 

[Blues Man]

Yeah boy. Hiring medical experts to sit on a jury. Always on call and they will appreciate the $20 they make. As I said before, solutions that are not solutions are not solutions.

Just charge those who lie.

Why would they have to be on call?

There are more than enough backlogged cases where a professional pool of jurors could easily be put to work full time for years to come.

Cases would be moved through the courts faster, verdicts would be more reliable.

 

[pknopp]

Why would they have to be on call?

There are more than enough backlogged cases where a professional pool of jurors could easily be put to work full time for years to come.

Cases would be moved through the courts faster, verdicts would be more reliable.

Sure, I'm going to get a medical degree and become a professional juror.

 

[JoeB131]

You didn't say "I dont want to do it". You said only those too stupid to get out of it serve on a jury.

It's not that hard to get out of serving if you have a valid reason.

Exactly. I have better things to do.

Your “professional jurors” would essentially be lawyers. If there is a more corrupt group of people on this planet than lawyers, I’ve never heard of it. A lawyer will do or say anything to win a case. Having professional jurors is a really, really bad idea.

I think it might be quite the opposite. If you had professional juries of people with legal backgrounds, let's say you have to spend 5 years serving on juries between Law School and being allowed to practice... they would recognize a lot of the lawyers tricks and wouldn't fall for them. They would know what the law is and apply it properly.

As my attorney said to me once, "if you are arguing a point of law, get a judge to hear your case, if you are appealling to emotion, get a jury."

When you get outrageous cases of misconduct, like Rittenhouse or OJ Simpson, it's because the jury ignored the evidence and went with emotion.

It won’t work, the jurors will be paid by the government that has a vested interest in convicting defendants. Jurors who don’t convict won’t be called back. The jury will be simply an arm of the prosecution. Plus to make your system legal you’d have to amend the constitution. It calls for a jury of your peers, not a jury of professionals.

Not really. A professional Jury would be under the same obligation as a judge. A judge doesn't have a vested interest in "who wins". They only are there to apply the law. A professional jury would do the same.

 

[JoeB131]

But yet you are still a stupid uneducated confused Moon Bat.

Says the guy with a severe mental illness...

At least your aren't describing everything as "filthy" anymore... that was a tell to your mental condition.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Public defenders get paid by the government too.

And what's so great about a jury of your so called peers?

And if a jury is supposed to be a person's peers why do we see all White juries in the trial of a Black guy?

The average person just isn't sophisticated enough to grasp much of the evidence that is very technical or involves hard science.

Yep and public defender's offices are usually far worse funded than the prosecutors they face every day in court. A jury of your peers is far more likely to relate to you than a judge or a group of professionals. The composition of a jury is usually the luck of the draw, or like in the OJ case the reality of the jury pool at that courthouse (nine Blacks, one Latino and two Whites).

 

[Flash]

Says the guy with a severe mental illness...

At least your aren't describing everything as "filthy" anymore... that was a tell to your mental condition.

You do all your fucking bragging but you are always on the wrong side of everything. You never get anything right. You voted for Joe Potatohead for heaven's sake. LOL! That is the burden an uneducated low information Moon Bat has to bear.

 

[SavannahMann]

It wouldn't "go" any way because there will never be a trail in the American justice system where Global Warming is the defendant.

How about the US Government where their inaction was causing irreparable harm?