Jury Duty
- Thread starter Cool Dood
- Start date
Michael Moore
Recycles dryer sheets
No? I'm pretty sure that as foreman of the jury we were the ones that returned the innocent or guilty determination.
It may be that you are saying that those providing the information to the jury are the ones that make the determination, but that information is still subject to review by the jury, and if it doesn't "make the case" it can be rejected.
cheers,
Michael
It may be that you are saying that those providing the information to the jury are the ones that make the determination, but that information is still subject to review by the jury, and if it doesn't "make the case" it can be rejected.
cheers,
Michael
youbet
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I'm saying that the jury gives their opinion based on the evidence presented. Whether the accused actually committed the transgression is another matter altogether.
The outcome is often highly disputed. Just ask John Allen Muhammad.
The outcome is often highly disputed. Just ask John Allen Muhammad.
Michael Moore
Recycles dryer sheets
Do you have a reasonable alternative in light of the apparent absence of the Truth Spell?
If we had access to an Omniscope that let us look back in time and view what actually happened (with multiple highly-trained people viewing and cross-checking their perceptions) we might come close to a 100% correct decision rate.
But in the absence of that, we've got to work with what we've got. In some cases, possibly many cases, what we've got is less than accurate information.
The impression I had from the trial I was on was that no one at the incident(s) was taking down notes expecting that they'd be making a deposition in a couple of years. Having an Omniscope would have cut the duration of that trial quite significantly. In fact, there'd be no need for a trial - you'd have people view the occurance and if a majority of the trained evaluators agreed on what happened, that would be all that was needed.
The current system may suck occasionally (actually that is probably undoubtedly sucks), and possibly or probably even more often than that.
What's the alternative?
Shucks, I can remember as a kid that I couldn't help looking guilty even when falsely accused of doing something.
There's going to be a margin of error in anything that is done. And that is a good reason for not rushing out and executing people, since it is far from unknown for "convicted killers" to later be exonerated.
Would it be horrible to have both innocent people in prison, and guilty people on the streets? I won't argue otherwise. I'd rather have a few more guilty people set free and fewer innocent people sent up. But if you want 100% accuracy we might as well just abolish the justice system entirely, as I don't think it is likely to happen.
cheers,
Michael
If we had access to an Omniscope that let us look back in time and view what actually happened (with multiple highly-trained people viewing and cross-checking their perceptions) we might come close to a 100% correct decision rate.
But in the absence of that, we've got to work with what we've got. In some cases, possibly many cases, what we've got is less than accurate information.
The impression I had from the trial I was on was that no one at the incident(s) was taking down notes expecting that they'd be making a deposition in a couple of years. Having an Omniscope would have cut the duration of that trial quite significantly. In fact, there'd be no need for a trial - you'd have people view the occurance and if a majority of the trained evaluators agreed on what happened, that would be all that was needed.
The current system may suck occasionally (actually that is probably undoubtedly sucks), and possibly or probably even more often than that.
What's the alternative?
Shucks, I can remember as a kid that I couldn't help looking guilty even when falsely accused of doing something.
There's going to be a margin of error in anything that is done. And that is a good reason for not rushing out and executing people, since it is far from unknown for "convicted killers" to later be exonerated.
Would it be horrible to have both innocent people in prison, and guilty people on the streets? I won't argue otherwise. I'd rather have a few more guilty people set free and fewer innocent people sent up. But if you want 100% accuracy we might as well just abolish the justice system entirely, as I don't think it is likely to happen.
cheers,
Michael
lets-retire
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2004
- Messages
- 1,798
Michael--What I'm saying is in a trial the two lawyers are attempting to have the jury believe thier side of the story. Most times the only way to do that is theatrics. I do believe the court system is the best there is right now, but it is very far from perfect, normally the bad guy will be set free if they take it to trial. The few times I have seen this to not be true have been in juvenile court where the judge is the jury.
Do you know how many times I've been asked questions on the stand that are only marginally relevant to the case? Things like, 'She answered the cell phone? Where was the phone before she picked it up?' Does it really matter where her phone was when she was talking to me about a crime that happened 30 minutes prior? But because she answered it and I don't know where the phone was, my memory of the interview and my actions on scene cannot be trusted. Therefore I am an unreliable witness. The same goes for the witness who are not normally exposed to viewing the highly stressful incidents and forget major portions of the incident. How did the guy get to the curb? I don't remember. You were looking right at it? Yes. How can you not remember? I don't remember.' I've seen it more times than I care to remember. It doesn't matter that the guy getting to the curb is irrelevant to him beating the crap out of someone in the middle of the street.
Do you know how many times I've been asked questions on the stand that are only marginally relevant to the case? Things like, 'She answered the cell phone? Where was the phone before she picked it up?' Does it really matter where her phone was when she was talking to me about a crime that happened 30 minutes prior? But because she answered it and I don't know where the phone was, my memory of the interview and my actions on scene cannot be trusted. Therefore I am an unreliable witness. The same goes for the witness who are not normally exposed to viewing the highly stressful incidents and forget major portions of the incident. How did the guy get to the curb? I don't remember. You were looking right at it? Yes. How can you not remember? I don't remember.' I've seen it more times than I care to remember. It doesn't matter that the guy getting to the curb is irrelevant to him beating the crap out of someone in the middle of the street.
