Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

The Jury? - 12 Cheap Stooges!

racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 8:39:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There can be only ONE credible reason that a jury of 12 total strangers are plucked off the street and are empaneled to adjudicate a criminal or civil trial. It is that after the event, no one is held responsible for the results. Juries imprison and execute innocent people as well as release guilty criminals such as O J Simpson. Juries are manipulated by legal professionals and can be steered almost at will. In most other walks of life, people responsible for disastrous outcomes are held accountable, juries are not. The judge's deliberations and conclusions are subject to appeal, the jury's is not. That is just the bright, positive side.

Jurors may not use their own judgment, initiative or talent during the trial. They may question no one. They may not collaborate. They may only obey their cynical instructors. They are subject to punishment, censure and rebuke for breaching the deliberately complex, obscure, nebulous and abstract 'rules' and 'directives'. They are clearly and demonstrably the pawns and puppets of jaded cronies running a well worn theatrical event in a cynical legal process, rather than a proper, professionally managed justice system.

Ask yourself what other process situations you'd be satisfied to have settled by a squad of amateurs. A jury to decide the procedure of your hernia or dental operation? Your investment portfolio? Your voting preferences? What goes into your shopping trolley? Your car service? Why allow a random throw of the dice for the most important thing in your life - your legal protection? In the real world, situations are decided by the best and most qualified people available, not by a pool of amateur, unqualified novices, lovely and decent human beings that they might be. If a bridge collapses, a team of professional engineers and a host of other experts assess the situation. There is no call for a panel of pedestrians to be empaneled for a decision. Aircraft investigators do not need a jury to help with the aftermath of a tragedy. A panel of professional judges, held liable after the trial is a very simple and sensible proposition. If the legal system was as fair and impartial and justice driven as it so often claims, there would be far less dissatisfaction and rightly so.

Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 9:06:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've never thought about a jury as negative. They can be punished? News to me. Why the f*ck would anyone want to serve on a jury with a risk of punishment hanging over their heads? What is the nature and scope of this punishment?

I would imagine that the main reason we have a 'right' to a jury trial is to escape the man. When you're being smacked around by cops and judges and other instruments of the system, it's nice to be able to get someone in there that isn't part of the team. Of course if you just end up with a bunch of neocons in there, you're better off taking your chances with the judge :)
kfc
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2011 9:20:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/16/2011 9:06:46 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
I've never thought about a jury as negative. They can be punished? News to me. Why the f*ck would anyone want to serve on a jury with a risk of punishment hanging over their heads? What is the nature and scope of this punishment?

In Australia, a juror went independently to a crime scene and the judge threw the trial out. The juror was given a suspended jail term for contempt of court. Independent thinking is as good as a criminal offense. Cheers
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 1:01:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
That's not independent thinking being punished, that's independent discovery procedures. All you have to do to avoid that punishment is not do them. I'm no fan of juries but that's a silly criticism.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 1:47:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 1:01:46 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That's not independent thinking being punished, that's independent discovery procedures. All you have to do to avoid that punishment is not do them. I'm no fan of juries but that's a silly criticism.

Maybe I was being too subtle. It is the 'procedure' which treats a juror the way a cattle dog handles sheep. You know full well that potential jurors are screened mercilessly. If it was a fair system, they'd just pick any twelve at random. What I described was a system's screening process. Not fair at all. To 'not do it' to avoid the punishment is to abdicate your intelligence and your integrity. Give the public just a bit more credence. Your brain should not be used as a rubber stamp by the unscrupulous.Cheers!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2011 2:34:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 1:47:58 AM, racist wrote:
At 5/17/2011 1:01:46 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That's not independent thinking being punished, that's independent discovery procedures. All you have to do to avoid that punishment is not do them. I'm no fan of juries but that's a silly criticism.

Maybe I was being too subtle. It is the 'procedure' which treats a juror the way a cattle dog handles sheep. You know full well that potential jurors are screened mercilessly.
I've BEEN a juror. Voir dire is no big deal. They just have to take out any biases that stand a significant chance of bringing up irrelevant issues-- such as what the juror in Australia brought up, which was a previous conviction. There was a reason that evidence was barred, it was irrelevant to the case. It's salutary to prevent false convictions.

"Mercilessly?" Most people regard getting screened out as a mercy. The real problems with jury duty, after all, are conscript labor and incompetence.

If it was a fair system, they'd just pick any twelve at random.
And if that gives you a Mockingbird jury?

Not fair at all. To 'not do it' to avoid the punishment is to abdicate your intelligence and your integrity.
No. If the prosecution is barred from bringing certain evidence, there are good reasons for that. If the defense is barred from bringing it on any apparent grounds other than lack of discovery (which should get a new trial later), you should automatically vote Not Guilty on the grounds that the defense is entitled to bring any and every possible defense. There are no circumstances where a juror should be looking for evidence neither party cares about. Although they should be able to ask questions of the parties or the judge.

Give the public just a bit more credence.

There is no such thing as the public.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Heathen
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 11:35:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I always enjoy reading racist's posts, how ever off-kilter they may be.
"Once an object has been seen, it is impossible to put the mind back to the same condition it was in before it saw it." - Thomas Paine
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2011 3:06:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/17/2011 2:34:04 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/17/2011 1:47:58 AM, racist wrote:

I've BEEN a juror. Voir dire is no big deal. They just have to take out any biases that stand a significant chance of bringing up irrelevant issues-- such as what the juror in Australia brought up, which was a previous conviction. There was a reason that evidence was barred, it was irrelevant to the case. It's salutary to prevent false convictions.

Based on the assumption that jurors can do what a judge-alone or panel of professionals can't, without allowing jurors the flexibility accorded to the defense professionals. Horse & buggy theatrics was entertaining once, but I'm afraid the 12th century went that way.

"Mercilessly?" Most people regard getting screened out as a mercy. The real problems with jury duty, after all, are conscript labor and incompetence.

No, the real problem is that the wrong tools are used for the wrong job. Air crash investigators do not use 12 geniuses from the street to give them the big picture. Amateurs are amateurs and the legal professionals treat the jurors as cheap social condoms. Absolution from responsibility is the bottom line.

If it was a fair system, they'd just pick any twelve at random.

And if that gives you a Mockingbird jury?

Under that system, reap what ye sow. In a proper judicial system, justice would be the real outcome.

Not fair at all. To 'not do it' to avoid the punishment is to abdicate your intelligence and your integrity.

No. If the prosecution is barred from bringing certain evidence, there are good reasons for that. If the defense is barred from bringing it on any apparent grounds other than lack of discovery (which should get a new trial later), you should automatically vote Not Guilty on the grounds that the defense is entitled to bring any and every possible defense. There are no circumstances where a juror should be looking for evidence neither party cares about. Although they should be able to ask questions of the parties or the judge.

Based on the assumption that a bunch of know nothings and screened scrupulously for their non-thinking qualities, somehow represent a rational way of securing a result unattainable by competent and accountable legal professionals. Puppets are still puppets.

Give the public just a bit more credence.


There is no such thing as the public.

Well, in that case, just don't go near any street toilets, libraries, schools or courtrooms. You'll have no use for them. Cheers!
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2011 8:44:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I see us as sheep being herded every day, so I guess this subject just isn't that important to me. Anyone who holds a typical job is so beaten-down by rules and hierarchy that it really is quite pathetic. I certainly don't see this as anything fundamental, and if anything is just one more small example of a much greater underlying problem: capitalism and the state.
kfc
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2011 12:00:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago

Based on the assumption that jurors can do what a judge-alone or panel of professionals can't
You have it backwards.
Trained legal professionals have superior legal judgment to conscripts on average, just as trained acrobats are more likely to be able to do a backflip than a conscript from the average population

No, the real problem is that the wrong tools are used for the wrong job. Air crash investigators do not use 12 geniuses from the street to give them the big picture. Amateurs are amateurs and the legal professionals treat the jurors as cheap social condoms. Absolution from responsibility is the bottom line.
It sounds like you agree that one of the problems is incompetence. It's not the legal professionals' fault the founders had stupid ideas for courtrooms. And do you disagree that conscription is evil?

And if that gives you a Mockingbird jury?

Under that system, reap what ye sow. In a proper judicial system, justice would be the real outcome.
Define proper.

No. If the prosecution is barred from bringing certain evidence, there are good reasons for that. If the defense is barred from bringing it on any apparent grounds other than lack of discovery (which should get a new trial later), you should automatically vote Not Guilty on the grounds that the defense is entitled to bring any and every possible defense. There are no circumstances where a juror should be looking for evidence neither party cares about. Although they should be able to ask questions of the parties or the judge.

Based on the assumption that a bunch of know nothings and screened scrupulously for their non-thinking qualities, somehow represent a rational way of securing a result unattainable by competent and accountable legal professionals.
No, you have it backwards. I made no such assumption.

There is no such thing as the public.

Well, in that case, just don't go near any street toilets, libraries, schools or courtrooms. You'll have no use for them. Cheers!

Did you just declare that "The public" refers to something for taking a **** on?
And what's with all the bold crap? What a waste of time.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2011 10:05:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/19/2011 12:00:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

You have it backwards. Trained legal professionals have superior legal judgment to conscripts on average, just as trained acrobats are more likely to be able to do a backflip than a conscript from the average population

If that's backwards, explain forwards. What is a bunch of know nothings doing being run through hoops by professionals? What's wrong with a panel of professional experts? Especially accountable ones? Keep to the topic.

It sounds like you agree that one of the problems is incompetence. It's not the legal professionals' fault the founders had stupid ideas for courtrooms. And do you disagree that conscription is evil?

Whatever else can I say to that? Incompetence PLUS horse and buggy day theatrics by conscripted pawns. Two for the price of one - how good is that? Any evil would be an innocent person being sent to the gas or needle chamber by a jury of idiots. Unless you're into suicide.

Define proper.

Define it? I'll do better. I'll go beyond it. I would expect a person's life, when under suspicion to be assayed in similar fashion to the way their body would be assessed for life saving procedures. Without archaic theatrics, manipulations and deceits. I would not expect a panel of passengers conscripted from a bus queue to determine the method of procedure. I would expect ONLY fully qualified professionals to be present. Juries are punching bags, puppets, pawns - like, yuh git muh drift, huh, pardner?

Did you just declare that "The public" refers to something for taking a **** on?
And what's with all the bold crap? What a waste of time.

So what's with the - " There is no such thing as the public.?"
The reference to the crapper and the libraries et al was a sarcasm of the notion of privately owned institutions for such functions. What are "Public Toilets" built for? Uranium miners and Kossacks? The bold 'crap' separates mine from thine. Cheers!

Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2011 10:25:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If that's backwards, explain forwards.
Forwards is that what i said is based on the assumption that it's harder to get a good result from conscripts than legal professionals.

What's wrong with a panel of professional experts?
Nothing, I favor that.

Did you just declare that "The public" refers to something for taking a **** on?
And what's with all the bold crap? What a waste of time.

So what's with the - " There is no such thing as the public.?"
The same thing that was with it before. I said there is no such thing as the public. You "said "NUH UH, THERE ARE CRAPPERS.

The reference to the crapper and the libraries et al was a sarcasm of the notion of: :privately owned institutions for such functions. What are "Public Toilets" built for?
For any random schmoe to use. There is a difference between the adjective "public" and the concept "The Public."

The bold 'crap' separates mine from thine.:
that's what we have : for.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2011 10:36:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/19/2011 10:25:06 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If that's backwards, explain forwards.
Forwards is that what i said is based on the assumption that it's harder to get a good result from conscripts than legal professionals.

What's wrong with a panel of professional experts?
Nothing, I favor that.

Look, man, love ya to bits, but I need an update on what we're squabbling about.Getting a good result from conscripts, especially amateurs is what I'm nay sayig about. We agree. Great. Pick out the sticking fish-bone and we can get back to smoochin' & dancin' agin', pardner. Cheers!


Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2011 11:32:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The dispute was whether AS LONG AS we conscript juries the rules of evidence are good things.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
racist
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2011 11:18:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/19/2011 11:32:07 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The dispute was whether AS LONG AS we conscript juries the rules of evidence are good things.

Thank you for at least trammeling the scattered fragments. Very untidy. I have absolutely no issue with the quality or matter of the rules of evidence. My main pleint is an always will be the USE of juries AT ALL. Especially if I was brought to trial on a matter where I knew I had done no wrong but was in the wrong place and all that. This also assumes there's nothing too obvious about me, ie skin color, religious disposition, associations and other baits for the ecretly prejudiced. In the words of Dr House: "Would you rather a doctor who held your hand as you were dying, or one who didn't give a rats about you personally but just fixed you up?" The latter for me, thanx!

The jury is not there for the sake of their capacity to think. They are instructed not to. "We'll do the thinnin' around here, an' don't you fergit it!" as the comic hero would say.The jury's reason for existence is simple. They are performed to. It's about persuading them emotionally. They are screened, sifted, filtered and discarded at whim. They are set apart. They are instructed and specifically configured mentally. An unequal balance in defense/prosecution talent will always give an edge to the biggest guns. That's a fact.

If juries are all that is claimed of them, rattle off other institutions or organizations where they could be used for important results. Judges are used in dance, sporting and various competitions, but not juries. Why? There are no juries in courts martial - why? Panels of functional specialists are universal. Not juries. Why? A jury to determine the guilt of a rapist or pedophile? Why not a military operation or the aftermath of a tsunami or earthquake? No juries for the design or implementation of the space program? You'd think they'd be perfect for the job. Ask your president if he'd have preferred to have been installed through the collective graces of a jury's omniscient deliberations . What do you reckon he'd say to you? Cheers!