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 10-29-2011, 02:46 AM
 
Location: Lowell, MA
6,926 posts, read 5,695,486 times
Reputation: 10129

Advertisements

Even though the public can research and find out themselves the jurors names I have never heard such a thing as jurors names being released.

I don't remember the jurors names being released in the OJ case, has anyone else?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-29-2011, 02:50 AM
 
Location: 39 20' 59"N / 75 30' 53"W
16,085 posts, read 23,876,116 times
Reputation: 17982
Quote:
Originally Posted by hopedelivers View Post
I don't remember the jurors names being released in the OJ case, has anyone else?
I followed that case closely, No, I don't remember ever hearing or seeing jurors names released to the public.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2011, 02:55 AM
 
Location: 39 20' 59"N / 75 30' 53"W
16,085 posts, read 23,876,116 times
Reputation: 17982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53 View Post
I am genuinly asking a question.

Just why is it so important that the names of jury members be released to the general public?
My off the cuff opinion, its only important to those looking for some karmic justice and angry over the verdict of acquittal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2011, 03:22 AM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,925 posts, read 19,137,179 times
Reputation: 9155
I fail to see how "transperancy" comes into play here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2011, 06:18 AM
 
403 posts, read 517,123 times
Reputation: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
Well I'll blow this little theory out of the water right now, I live in Ohio { nowhere near Florida } and have no plans on going there to harass these jurors in any way, yet I still think the names should have been released { or "made avaulable" for those of you who want to get technical } to the public just as they are in any other case. You may think "transparency" is just an excuse but that is exactly the issue. ifwe make an exception for these jurors, then who else must we make an exception for and who gets to decide that? It's aslippery slope and before you know it, what are the rules even there for in the first place?

Everyone here is asking why they were released and asking what purpose it will serve, but the real question is.....why shouldn't they have been? Can someone please tell me that?
They shouldn't have been released for privacy and security reasons. grand jury information is sealed. This shouldn't be any different because there's nothing anyone can do about the verdict. What exactly does the public gain from knowing the names of these jurors? What can they legitimately DO with the information??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2011, 02:13 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,778,703 times
Reputation: 7242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53 View Post
I am genuinly asking a question.

Just why is it so important that the names of jury members be released to the general public?

Quote:
Originally Posted by deepimpact2 View Post
They shouldn't have been released for privacy and security reasons. grand jury information is sealed. This shouldn't be any different because there's nothing anyone can do about the verdict. What exactly does the public gain from knowing the names of these jurors? What can they legitimately DO with the information??
What you guys are discussing is policy. If we as citizens have a problem with the policies that our judicial system operates under, then it is our duty to bring it to light. However, until the desired changes occur in policy, the policy remains that the juror names be public record. If the policy was that the names should never be made public, then I would be right there with you saying that it was wrong. However until then, these jurors should get no special treatment.

Quote:
quote=virgode;21485623]
Casey Anthony is privileged
,

Which I dont agree with either

Quote:
Originally Posted by virgode View Post
My off the cuff opinion, its only important to those looking for some karmic justice and angry over the verdict of acquittal.
Not all together true but you are on to something. One thing that making jury names public does is that it keeps the members somewhat accountable for the decisions they make. While they dont "owe" the public any explanation as to how they arrived at the decision they made, the transparency will keep a lazy juror somewhat in check and at bay. { none of this is related to the CA jury but rather juries in general. }
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2011, 02:18 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,778,703 times
Reputation: 7242
I'll give you all another reason for why they should be public record and it's a simple one........

A court proceeding is public and is funded with tax-payer dollars, therefore, tax-payers have a right to all the information they want about the proceeding.

So...... unless any of you want to find a way to privatize the judicial system, this is how it should stay.

I do think there needs to be changes in how jury members are selected though. I think being on a jury should be the individuals choice and not be forced to do so, but I guess that would create a whole new set of it's own problems what with "stealth jurors" and corruption and all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2011, 02:23 PM
 
Location: 39 20' 59"N / 75 30' 53"W
16,085 posts, read 23,876,116 times
Reputation: 17982
Please for the Love of God...read before you post a reply

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
What you guys are discussing is policy. If we as citizens have a problem with the policies that our judicial system operates under, then it is our duty to bring it to light. However, until the desired changes occur in policy, the policy remains that the juror names be public record. If the policy was that the names should never be made public, then I would be right there with you saying that it was wrong. However until then, these jurors should get no special treatment.

,

Which I dont agree with either



Not all together true but you are on to something. One thing that making jury names public does is that it keeps the members somewhat accountable for the decisions they make. While they dont "owe" the public any explanation as to how they arrived at the decision they made, the transparency will keep a lazy juror somewhat in check and at bay. { none of this is related to the CA jury but rather juries in general. }
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2011, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,925 posts, read 19,137,179 times
Reputation: 9155
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
Not all together true but you are on to something. One thing that making jury names public does is that it keeps the members somewhat accountable for the decisions they make. While they dont "owe" the public any explanation as to how they arrived at the decision they made, the transparency will keep a lazy juror somewhat in check and at bay. { none of this is related to the CA jury but rather juries in general. }
Sorry, that logic doesn't quite compute. You obviously acknowledge that juries owe the public absolutely zero explanation and that their decisions cannot be called into question in any official capacity, so how does making their names public make them "accountable"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2011, 02:31 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,925 posts, read 19,137,179 times
Reputation: 9155
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
I'll give you all another reason for why they should be public record and it's a simple one........

A court proceeding is public and is funded with tax-payer dollars, therefore, tax-payers have a right to all the information they want about the proceeding.

So...... unless any of you want to find a way to privatize the judicial system, this is how it should stay.
All the information they want eh?

Interesting concept. My current occupation is in civil service, and of course tax payer funded. How much information do you feel you have a right to know about me? Name? Address? Date of birth? Bank account information? How many rooms are in my house? What kind of car I drive? How many times a week my girlfriend and I have sex?

Where do you draw the line?
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