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, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,798,309 times
Reputation: 7242

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by virgode View Post
Please for the Love of God...read before you post a reply
No need for the snark virgode, I was just giving my 2-cents worth on policy and it wasn't directed at you, don't flatter yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
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?
Your name and criminal background will do just fine thank you.

{ oh, and your anual income as well, thanks. }
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-29-2011, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,943 posts, read 19,172,970 times
Reputation: 9175
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
Your name and criminal background will do just fine thank you.
Just to clarify, is that all you would want, or where the line should be drawn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2011, 02:55 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,798,309 times
Reputation: 7242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
Just to clarify, is that all you would want, or where the line should be drawn.
Well, I did edit it to say annual income as well.

However, yes, it is where I draw the line. What you do in your personal life has no business in the public eye.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2011, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,943 posts, read 19,172,970 times
Reputation: 9175
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
Well, I did edit it to say annual income as well.

However, yes, it is where I draw the line. What you do in your personal life has no business in the public eye.
Thanks for the clarification. One last question though. I assume when you say annual income, you mean salary, correct?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2011, 03:11 PM
 
Location: Ohio
15,169 posts, read 13,450,354 times
Reputation: 20607
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. }
Now that I know that my name will be public record, I can tell you this.....I would never vote to convict a criminal that had a strong, iffy looking family presence, or a gang member, for fear of retalialtion.

In fact, I don't think I will ever be chosen for jury duty.....as I wouldn't be judging on the guilt or innocence of the defendent.....I would be basing my judgement on my fear of retaliation.....keeping myself safe....and voting accordingly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2011, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,798,309 times
Reputation: 7242
Quote:
Originally Posted by virgode View Post
Please for the Love of God...read before you post a reply
Oh never mind virgode, I see what you are saying now.

You thought I was saying you DID agree with her getting special treatment, which is not what I was saying at all.

Even if CA is "priveleged" { which I was saying I dont agree that she should be } I dont think the jury should be privileged either. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
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"?
Because if they rush to a hasty decision, they will suffer much of the same backlash as the CA jurors are suffering right now. Basicly, I'm saying that if a juror knows his/her name will be made public, it may be incentive to do the job right instead of rushing to a hasty decision because they don't really want to be there. { again, not referring to CA jury }

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
Thanks for the clarification. One last question though. I assume when you say annual income, you mean salary, correct?
Correct.

I think it's only fair to know how much of my tax dollars are going towards your salary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2011, 03:26 PM
 
Location: 39 20' 59"N / 75 30' 53"W
16,085 posts, read 23,920,956 times
Reputation: 17987
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
No need for the snark virgode, I was just giving my 2-cents worth on policy and it wasn't directed at you, don't flatter yourself.



Your name and criminal background will do just fine thank you.

{ oh, and your anual income as well, thanks. }
Once again, I've never seen a poster quote specific words and take them totally out of context quite the way you do....amazing gift you have there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2011, 03:41 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,943 posts, read 19,172,970 times
Reputation: 9175
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
Because if they rush to a hasty decision, they will suffer much of the same backlash as the CA jurors are suffering right now. Basicly, I'm saying that if a juror knows his/her name will be made public, it may be incentive to do the job right instead of rushing to a hasty decision because they don't really want to be there. { again, not referring to CA jury }
The problem with that logic is that it cuts both ways. That social pressure could sway a jury to convict someone who is universally despised, or acquit someone who is well liked by the public. I know you said it would pressure them into not making hasty decisions, but that's just not reality. Take this case for instance. People were going to flip the **** out over that verdict whether it took 10 hours or 10 days to reach it. The crazy, moronic mob mentality is simply not going to draw that distinction.

This is why I agree with Mark's post from earlier. These jury lists should be kept sealed for every single case. There is absolutely no valid reason for the public to have that information.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2011, 03:57 PM
 
Location: 39 20' 59"N / 75 30' 53"W
16,085 posts, read 23,920,956 times
Reputation: 17987
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
Oh never mind virgode, I see what you are saying now.

You thought I was saying you DID agree with her getting special treatment, which is not what I was saying at all.

Even if CA is "priveleged" { which I was saying I dont agree that she should be } I dont think the jury should be privileged either. Two wrongs don't make a right
Thanks for re-thinking my post.

Two wrongs don't make a right? That works for a sandbox squabble in kindergarten, not so much here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2011, 04:17 PM
 
Location: Out West
22,783 posts, read 16,859,428 times
Reputation: 26318
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloryB View Post
I agree. I think most of the people are just over the whole fiasco.
Most. Not all. There was one "friend" on FB that to this day still pisses and whines about this verdict. It was so obnoxious, I finally deleted her.
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