U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-30-2011, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Native Floridian, USA
4,904 posts, read 6,118,463 times
Reputation: 6110

Advertisements

Quote:
...markg....snipped...I think, deep down, many people want these rights for themselves, but they don't want others--especially the "riff raff"--to have them. When the "riff raff" claim them, than they get up in arms and blame "greedy lawyers" and "soft-headed liberal judges"...snipped...
I think this was arrogant and uncalled for....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-30-2011, 11:15 AM
 
28,206 posts, read 20,744,351 times
Reputation: 16599
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I have come to dislike most conversations about criminal justice precisely because they are primarily about "gut reactions" instead of presenting intelligent and rational discourse on what is a complex subject. Some crimes are very emotional and admittedly it can be hard to keep a "clear head" about them. I think individuals are entitled to have feelings. What I disagree with is the notion that those "feelings" and those "emotions" ought to be the basis for a legal system. Anyone who doubts me ought to take a look at the number of posts on the Casey Anthony case and compare that with the number of posts on deep topics like "prosecutorial discretion" (one I tried to start) or the Miranda Rule. Emotions win hands down on this group when it comes to discussing anything.

The Founding Fathers were very concerned about a strong government that could take away the rights of ordinary people because they lived through this when the American colonies were part of the British Empire. They put provisions in our Bill of Rights that protected us from things like "unreasonable searches and seizures", a denial of the "due process of law", having to testify against ourselves in court, gave us a right to a jury trial in criminal cases, gave us the right to have an attorney to represent us in criminal cases, and protected us from "cruel and unusual punishments". I feel strongly about this among other reasons because I actually have family that died defending our country and our system in the military. I think, deep down, many people want these rights for themselves, but they don't want others--especially the "riff raff"--to have them. When the "riff raff" claim them, than they get up in arms and blame "greedy lawyers" and "soft-headed liberal judges".

Our system attempts to strike a balance that gives our government the power to deal with lawbreakers, yet does so without taking away all our liberties. Anyone who has studied history knows this is an age-old problem. Systems never get anything perfectly. Its simply in their nature. I would submit the jury system determines guilt or innocence accurately in 98% of all criminal cases.

On another note: Maybe I shouldn't be so surprised. Americans have really become a nation of whiners. I bet the same people who want to cut their taxes are the same ones complaining about the outcome in this case. "We want the system to be perfect, but we don't want to pay for it". Look around this country. There are police departments laying off scores of officers and not replacing the ones who have retired because their citizens won't allow them to raise any taxes. Responsible people wouldn't allow this. However, the average American these days is anything, but "responsible".
I absolutely agree with you. I liken it to the "drug testing welfare recipients" folks. American Rights are good enough for me, but not the riff raff, as you put it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2011, 12:58 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,786,494 times
Reputation: 7242
Quote:
Originally Posted by mag32gie View Post
You get over the fact that there are people out here that actually care about this little girl and what happened to her.
Don't tell us to "get over it". We aren't going to. You get over that.
Ok, you go ahead and spend the rest of your life hoping for some kind of justice or second trial that will never come. As someone else on here said, I'll devote my time to helping children that its not too late for. And the rest of us who respect the best justice system{ not just when we are pleased with the outcome } and how it works, will also move on.

In an earlier post you asked, "what would the founding fathers think about that?" Well, this is exactly the type of case that they set laws such as "double jeopardy" in place for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25 View Post
[

JOOC, what are you currently doing to help children that are still alive and being abused? Caylee is dead. She doesn't need your help anymore. There are live children that do.
You got it!

Ps. That wasn't me you quoted but my name was at the top.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnnieA View Post
I think this was arrogant and uncalled for....
Not really, it's true. I bet your hoping for a second trial aren't you? Let's say that you were put on trial for something that you didn't do. 2/3 of the population think you did do it but the jury finds you not guilty. Wouldn't you be glad that you could never be tried again? Regardless of whether Casey A. is guilty or not, don't you think she should be afforded the same rights? If you say " no, she shouldn't" than you are proving his point.

Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 08-30-2011 at 01:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2011, 02:53 PM
 
Location: Nassau, Long Island, NY
16,408 posts, read 28,892,751 times
Reputation: 7268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow View Post
Maybe not the way you think. Am I glad to see you write that? Yes, but not as a "neener neener" type way, just glad that you a) are thinking clearly and not with emotions and b) were strong enough to admit that.

I don't agree with much of what you say here but I'm giving you rep points just for that admission.
LOL. I ws wondering what was going on when I found a rep comment with your signature!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2011, 04:12 PM
 
9,528 posts, read 4,870,157 times
Reputation: 3876
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
[snip]Its simply in their nature. I would submit the jury system determines guilt or innocence accurately in 98% of all criminal cases.

On another note: Maybe I shouldn't be so surprised. Americans have really become a nation of whiners. I bet the same people who want to cut their taxes are the same ones complaining about the outcome in this case. "We want the system to be perfect, but we don't want to pay for it". Look around this country. There are police departments laying off scores of officers and not replacing the ones who have retired because their citizens won't allow them to raise any taxes. Responsible people wouldn't allow this. However, the average American these days is anything, but "responsible".
I don't see any connection between cutting taxes and complaining about the verdict. Unreasonable comment, based I'd guess on emotion and political views.

You submitting that juries are accurate in 98% of cases is nice, but high.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2011, 09:56 PM
 
Location: Native Floridian, USA
4,904 posts, read 6,118,463 times
Reputation: 6110
Quote:
....whippersnapper....snipped...I bet your hoping for a second trial aren't you? Let's say that you were put on trial for something that you didn't do. 2/3 of the population think you did do it but the jury finds you not guilty. Wouldn't you be glad that you could never be tried again? Regardless of whether Casey A. is guilty or not, don't you think she should be afforded the same rights? If you say " no, she shouldn't" than you are proving his point.
I really don't care if CA were tried again or not. I really don't. I think she was/is guilty but the jury has spoken and that is it. I never became immersed/invested in this case/trial like some did. I do think it was a travesty of justice, this verdict but, again, it is done.

I also do not want to waste any money by lining the pockets of those people involved, Casey, her family, her defense team. I am really thinking I do not want to invest anymore time on this either. I support and am active in efforts for abused and neglected children, for me that is enough. Hopefully, a lot of people will take their love and support of Caylee and turn it into something lasting and worthwhile. I would not like to see her forgotten but, there are so many.......

etra: I am outraged by the verdict and I have a right to be outraged. But I do believe in double jeopardy. I think Mark was arrogant in his statement about how people feel......he/she doesn't know how the majority of people truly feel, no more than I do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2011, 10:04 PM
 
18,852 posts, read 31,717,452 times
Reputation: 26118
I think one issue that needs to be looked at, in regards to the verdict in this case, is that it is similar to the verdict of the OJ case, which also had a sequestered jury. Think...who could be in a hotel, for 8 weeks, or more, away from family, jobs, basically life....what type of person are they going to get, who can do this, or even wants to? I don't see a jury like this, being the "typical" juror. Which is why, I seriously have issues with juries that are sequestered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2011, 11:34 PM
 
9,912 posts, read 9,304,041 times
Reputation: 8053
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasper12 View Post
I think one issue that needs to be looked at, in regards to the verdict in this case, is that it is similar to the verdict of the OJ case, which also had a sequestered jury. Think...who could be in a hotel, for 8 weeks, or more, away from family, jobs, basically life....what type of person are they going to get, who can do this, or even wants to? I don't see a jury like this, being the "typical" juror. Which is why, I seriously have issues with juries that are sequestered.
The attorneys for Dr. Conrad Murray charged in Michael Jackson's death asked for a sequestered jury. The request was denied.

This will be another high profile case. When the jury returns home a kid will turn on the TV and here comes the media blitz ... a newspaper may be laying there ... the juror may check their email or Facebook account!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2011, 12:00 AM
 
Location: Ohio
15,164 posts, read 13,429,410 times
Reputation: 20595
I don't think there is a good answer to what to do about a sequestered jury vs a non sequestered jury.

There are downsides to both.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2011, 04:41 AM
 
3,173 posts, read 3,076,304 times
Reputation: 3699
[quote=Magritte25;20667138]
Quote:
Originally Posted by mag32gie View Post

JOOC, what are you currently doing to help children that are still alive and being abused? Caylee is dead. She doesn't need your help anymore. There are live children that do.
I take care of little children everyday, my grandchildren.
There is no way to help a child that is being abused, they have parents and those parents have "rights".
I wouldn't want to be this jury if Casey Anthony kills the next one.
I will not "get over" the fact that she got away with this and there is not one person who has the "right" to tell me or anybody else "to get over it".
It is a mind your own business situation, I can get over or not get over anything I want to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top