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.
I covered that though and you are just reinforcing what I said. You are claiming you would believe you could not rule based upon the law.
Fair enough. You are being up front about it.
Legal precedent says jury nullification IS the law, still many/most courts completely disregard that legal precedent, demanding that they, the judge is the only one who can fully inform the jury of what the law is and says.
I agree. My position is it should not be complicated. You have a right to a fair trail by a jury of your peers. Not a jury that looks and believes a certain way.
The core problem there is that people are not fair minded and rational like you.
Both the defense and prosecution is going to try to pack the jury with BIASED people, heck the practice called venue shopping is exactly that. There is also a term called "jury nullification" along those same lines.
Not talking specifically to this case but rather pointing out the broader issue of WHERE and WHO gets to be on a jury.
The core problem there is that people are not fair minded and rational like you.
Both the defense and prosecution is going to try to pack the jury with BIASED people, heck the practice called venue shopping is exactly that. There is also a term called "jury nullification" along those same lines.
Not talking specifically to this case but rather pointing out the broader issue of WHERE and WHO gets to be on a jury.
Right, they should not get the chance to pack a jury.
That is part of the concept of “a jury of your peers”. I’ve always had an issue with the economic divide between most defendants and their juries, along with the educational one. The reality is they live in different worlds, and therefore understand different truths. There are times when I have heard prosecutors on TV say “what innocent person would ... blah, blah, blah...” and I could have answered their question, but I understood why neither he, the judge, and most of the jurors couldn’t.
I was just giving the reason why prosecutors would kick out potential black jurors, not defending it.
The Thread title is WRONG ..... this case is not about "kicking black people off of juries" - it's about keeping black people from being on certain juries.
I've been kept off of a jury more than once because I was once in an auto accident with a police officer. It's called "peremptory challenges" because it happens BEFORE the Jury is selected.
Deliberately keeping black people off of a jury ONLY because the Defendant is Black -- deserves to be challenged in Court and all the way to the US Supreme Court.
Which is exactly where it is now.
I used to work with a black co-worker that had a really twisted idea of justice. He was on a jury. It was a trial of a Vietnamese man arrested for a DUI. The day he was on the jury, he texted me. The first text said that he was upsetting the other 11 jurors. They all thought that the man was guilty, but he was voting not guilty. Then... it was "let the Chinaman go free!" His next text was "if it's not murder, then he is innocent".
So yeah, this black former co-worker should never ever be a juror again. IMO that Vietnamese man was probably guilty, and as someone who drives a car, I don't want drunk drivers on the roads. I was really upset at what my former co-worker did. And I stopped talking to him. His moral standards are really messed up, he obviously thinks that no one should be punished for a crime, unless it involves killing someone. Even then, he told me that he once witnessed a murder, but ran away and didn't offer to help the police by being a witness or offering anonymous help.
That is part of the concept of “a jury of your peers”. I’ve always had an issue with the economic divide between most defendants and their juries, along with the educational one. The reality is they live in different worlds, and therefore understand different truths. There are times when I have heard prosecutors on TV say “what innocent person would ... blah, blah, blah...” and I could have answered their question, but I understood why neither he, the judge, and most of the jurors couldn’t.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miu
I used to work with a black co-worker that had a really twisted idea of justice. He was on a jury. It was a trial of a Vietnamese man arrested for a DUI. The day he was on the jury, he texted me. The first text said that he was upsetting the other 11 jurors. They all thought that the man was guilty, but he was voting not guilty. Then... it was "let the Chinaman go free!" His next text was "if it's not murder, then he is innocent".
So yeah, this black former co-worker should never ever be a juror again. IMO that Vietnamese man was probably guilty, and as someone who drives a car, I don't want drunk drivers on the roads. I was really upset at what my former co-worker did. And I stopped talking to him. His moral standards are really messed up, he obviously thinks that no one should be punished for a crime, unless it involves killing someone. Even then, he told me that he once witnessed a murder, but ran away and didn't offer to help the police by being a witness or offering anonymous help.
You are both making separate but great cases for segregation.
Its something I think we need to look at because the more people we import in here who have no concept of the American ideal of justice nor the capability to evaluate it, the worst the criminal justice system is going to get.
If can't end this failed multicultural experiment, I think we need to reconstitute this nation into separate entities where like-minded people can live peacefully and more harmoniously together than they can't do right now.
You are both making separate but great cases for segregation.
Its something I think we need to look at because the more people we import in here who have no concept of the American ideal of justice nor the capability to evaluate it, the worst the criminal justice system is going to get.
If can't end this failed multicultural experiment, I think we need to reconstitute this nation into separate entities where like-minded people can live peacefully and more harmoniously together than they can't do right now.
You are proposing segregation based on one incident, I have been on several juries on most people from various races and religions have the same principles regardless. Poor judgement and bias is certainly not limited to ones particular background.
But getting back to the point of this thread, you are backing the segregation of juries as in this this Supreme Court case, you should only be judged by someone of the same background to get a fair trial. That should prove interesting, segregate Muslims, Christians, black, white, Hispanic.
You are proposing segregation based on one incident, I have been on several juries on most people from various races and religions have the same principles regardless. Poor judgement and bias is certainly not limited to ones particular background.
But getting back to the point of this thread, you are backing the segregation of juries as in this this Supreme Court case, you should only be judged by someone of the same background to get a fair trial. That should prove interesting, segregate Muslims, Christians, black, white, Hispanic.
I think that my example shows why certain groups of people create and live in crime-ridden neighborhoods. And yes, they shouldn't be allowed on juries, because they don't believe in the same standards of law that our society has adopted and followed.
Sure, a jury of all black men from the same ghetto background will be much more likely find a black man of the same background "not guilty" of most crimes. But that would be ignoring the judge's instructions explaining the laws and the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt." In finding that black man "innocent", it would be much less about real innocence, and more about reparations and protesting against "the (white) man" and his laws and rules. And they would much less likely find that black defendant guilty if the victim was white. And that isn't real justice in action. Juries need to be as objective as possible and follow the rules and laws of our country and society at large and not make social statements or reparations one case at a time.
I used to work with a black co-worker that had a really twisted idea of justice. He was on a jury. It was a trial of a Vietnamese man arrested for a DUI. The day he was on the jury, he texted me. The first text said that he was upsetting the other 11 jurors. They all thought that the man was guilty, but he was voting not guilty. Then... it was "let the Chinaman go free!" His next text was "if it's not murder, then he is innocent".
So yeah, this black former co-worker should never ever be a juror again. IMO that Vietnamese man was probably guilty, and as someone who drives a car, I don't want drunk drivers on the roads. I was really upset at what my former co-worker did. And I stopped talking to him. His moral standards are really messed up, he obviously thinks that no one should be punished for a crime, unless it involves killing someone. Even then, he told me that he once witnessed a murder, but ran away and didn't offer to help the police by being a witness or offering anonymous help.
When did judges start allowing jurors to text from the jury room?
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.
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.
