Quote:
Originally Posted by himain
By the sound of her voice she's an older Haitian lady. I have a feeling this is a lie
|
I call BS on it too. She's supposedly married yet showing herself on camera?
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
As I was saying in my post, I really wonder if we ought to maintain jury trials in most cases. The vast majority of people seem to want to avoid serving on a jury from what I can tell. If only twenty-five percent of the public will willingly serve that creates a situation where I think the jury system become untenable. Rather than go through a process of forcing people to serve maybe it just makes more sense to move to a system where judges decide cases? I represent a lot of people who get injured in car accidents and we have moved in my state to a system where these disputes are largely decided through the private process of arbitration. It is a vast improvement over judicial trials. Most people who serve on a jury do not imagine being called to serve on a civil jury. If they must serve at all, they imagine hearing some kind of dramatic criminal case. Civil trials seldom are very interesting and that makes ordinary people even less excited about jury service. That apathy was largely reflected in the past in verdicts that were either way too low or way too high.
Jury sequestration is rare and usually only occurs in high profile cases. Prospective jurors are usually asked if they could deal with sequestration for several weeks. Many are excused because they cannot do so. I am grateful for people who express a willingness to serve--as you do. Again, though, I think by being willing to serve you are in the minority. I fear most people would gladly get out of jury service whether it is a "civic responsibility" or not. I do not mind people being honest and saying that we should abolish the jury system. What I do mind are people who insist that we maintain it and than when they are called to serve find 100 reasons why they personally should not be required to be a juror. I have seen people like that too.
|
One of the guys on the afternoon NJ talk radio station just came up for jury duty. He wanted to serve, he thought he was actually picked for a case, only to find out he had gotten through the first round or two of finding jurors. He was surprised when they told him he was dismissed which is a huge shame since he was so willing to put his life on hold for how ever long the trial would be for.
I think people like him are going to be a rare find. At some point, they will have to do something because I do not see the majority of the younger generation wanting to serve jury duty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chas863
It wouldn't take me 5 minutes to reach a decision on that sentence. I don't know how long the sentencing trial might take. If that guy doesn't get the maximum sentence, then I can't think of anyone who would. How many people do you have to kill to get the maximum sentence... 100? 200? 5,000? Seems to me that 17 should be more than enough.
|
17 should be way more than enough I'd think
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
I agree this crime sounds horrendous. Nevertheless, what you are expressing is a grave concern of mine. That concern is people who make up their mind about a case from media reports. I would hope for people who might have opinions, but would reserve their judgment until they actually heard the case (the evidence) before making a life and death decision.
|
That's probably an issue here, how could he get a fair trial when it was national news?
Give him the injection, be done with it IMO. He would get better than his victims.
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.
