THEY’RE NOT DONATING MONTHLY!
Posted on 07/12/2011 10:06:07 AM PDT by mainestategop
With a liberal infested Jury? Hell NO.
BTW Liberal means, Filthy Communist.
Hasn’t worked since OJ got away with cold blooded murder, hands covered with blood, and bloody glove behind his house. Other than just letting one or a panel of three judges determine guilt/innocence, I’m not sure what the solution is.
Trial by jury won’t work as long as the case lawyers pick the jury.
And we must stop cherry-picking jurors. Former military, police, private investigators, and such should not be excluded from the jury pool unless there is cause to do so.
The military system is superior in that respect because it limits the amount of challenges a prosecutor or defense lawyer can issue in selecting a jury.
I don’t think the jury system is the problem. The problem is we have become a dumbed down society, no common sense, and most have the attention span of a flea.
Obama is our President.......thats all the proof you need.
“Liberals unfortunately are incapable of morality and patriotism and cannot be good citizens.”
wow, that’s a pretty strong statement!
Casey Anthony was acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove their case and the jury properly did not send Anthony to jail and maybe a death sentence just because a mob of screaming women outside the courthouse wanted that.
In this case the jury system worked just fine.
The message to prosecutors here is not to bring charges against people until they have a solid case.
I might accept the argument that jurors should be selected on the basis of their commitment to civic duty (registering to vote) vs. operation of a dangerous vehicle.
However, our entire trial/jury system is designed to be better to free a guilty person than to punish an innocent one. Otherwise, I’m wary of someone attempting to change the system simply because they didn’t like a verdict.
It was the prosecution’s case to lose and they did.
you do realize the “picking” is severly limited.
you have a very finite number of strikes to remove for whatever reason... (5?)
The judge can question the reason regardless
you have a set number for cause...(knows the people, family, relative, would never convict, would always convict...)
The judge can question the reason
And you have the defense and prosecution working to get different jurrors on or off.
This also includes jurrors who come up with any form of excuse to get out of the jury.
The LAST people you want making a decision for YOUR LIFE is a sanctimonious judge or a prosecutor (see nifong)
PS Florida jury trials have the same thing. (as in this recent casey anthony trial)
The American jury system works just fine 5 days a week in every city and county of our great country. The American people are well educated and fair minded. Overall they do a wonderful job of judging their peers.
I was on a jury about 2 years ago. A child molestation case in Gwinnett County, GA. The trial took 3 days. The prosecution and the defense put on their case and then the jury deliberated and a came to a verdict. I believe we got to the truth and made the right decision.
Occasionally a guilty person goes free and an innocent person goes to jail but most of the time justice is done. Its not a perfect system but then nothing ever is.
I think most of the time Trial by Jury works just fine. Most people will convict or acquit someone regardless of their skin color or politics according to their conscience.
In the case of Casey Anthony, for example, I was personally outraged at the acquittal, but I can’t fault the jury’s decision based on the case the prosecution built.
At the end of the day, prosecutors are government employees who have no real “skin in the game” whether they win or lose. Defense attorneys rise and fall by their performance though.
Maybe the real problem is that the prosecution bears the largest burden of proof, and there’s simply no real incentive for them to go at it hard, get it right the first time, etc.
Everything in the state’s road to conviction sets the prosecution of to fail - CSI labs are usually remote with dispassionate lab techs who only do the testing their ordered to do, and take no personal interest in the larger case. There’s often no real penalty for lying on the stand as a witness, unless you’re outright proven to be deliberately perjuring yourself. Long trials tend to desensitize juries to the horrific details of the cases their evaluating.
Maybe the “fix” is to incentivize the prosecution for clear wins and to penalize them for procedural losses, or acquittals that arise as a direct result of lack of attention to detail or engagement.
The bottom line is that most juries take the “reasonable doubt” caveat very seriously, and the prosecution has to be exceedingly convincing to get past that.
The LAST people you want making a decision for YOUR LIFE is a sanctimonious judge or a prosecutor (see nifong)
One thing is certain. The process of jury selection and the rules for serving need to be changed.
None of these jurors should be able to make money off of serving for a period of 5 years after a verdict.
There should be no jury consultants and the jury should be selected from the county where the trial is held.
They can always move the whole trial before starting it.
Another thing. The defense does not have to prove the person innocent. That said, if they are going to lay out a defense by laying the blame at the specific feet of another person who has not been charged, they need to offer some evidence to prove it. If they can’t, it should be stricken as false.
not to mention the junk science experts.
...it could.
..if the trial is not too long.
Every week that the trial drags on, is a step closer to the person on trial getting off scott-free.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.