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.
Agreed. There are alot of naive idiots that criminal defense attys love to get on the jury.
I know a poster here who thinks all are innocent (incl Casey Anrhony) she is a naive sheltered person who hast worked for 30 years in the real world. These are the type people defense attys want on the jury.
I have worked all my life and am not naive and sheltered and yet believe in 'innocent until proven guilty'. The problem, I think, is what we consider as proof. I will almost always give people the benefit of the doubt. I would have a hard time living with myself knowing that I convicted an innocent person. I tend to think differently if I believe that the person has killed before or will again, like some Mafia characters or gang members.
If a person has not killed before, may have just snapped, does not seem to pose a threat, I believe in long therapy. I do believe that many people are capable of sorting out their thoughts and reforming. I believe that people who just 'snap' often should have been caught earlier and given help. I think we have a system to help the mentally fragile that often breaks down, as in the Andrea Yates case.
Having had a loved one falsely accused, KNOWING he's innocent and then knowing how much pertinent information is kept from the jury... I would never be able to sit on one. My first question would be, "do we get to see and hear ALL the evidence, or just the carefully selected bits and pieces that support your agenda?"
The problem with high profile cases is they get over scrutinized in the public. There is evidence against them, usually sufficient to convict, but the scrutiny gets microscopic so that they can't get convicted unless there's a video showing it, well not then either. It changes from overwhelming evidence to having to have 100% proof. I think professional jurors is the way to go.
The problem with high profile cases is they get over scrutinized in the public. There is evidence against them, usually sufficient to convict, but the scrutiny gets microscopic so that they can't get convicted unless there's a video showing it, well not then either. It changes from overwhelming evidence to having to have 100% proof. I think professional jurors is the way to go.
This is also very true. Media should be muzzled on these high profile cases. It becomes nothing but a circus. The victim is lost, and all the talking heads talk about is the latest hype.
Trial atty Beth Karas recommended jury reform after the Anthony case. I agree with you 100% re: professional jurors.
This is also very true. Media should be muzzled on these high profile cases. It becomes nothing but a circus. The victim is lost, and all the talking heads talk about is the latest hype.
Trial atty Beth Karas recommended jury reform after the Anthony case. I agree with you 100% re: professional jurors.
I agree with Beth Karas, but I don't know how that will ever happen ... 'a jury of your peers' ... after serving on juries that wanted to go home ... needed to return to work .... older homemaker ladies missing their soap operas ... others just going with the flow with no opinion of their own ... it was an eye opening experience for me each time I have served. Supposedly you are better off with 12 people determining your fate ... but I think if I should ever get into trouble I would just like a judge to determine my verdict.
I thought MacDonald has run out of appeals ... the US Supreme Court wouldn't hear his case in 1983. Of course DNA technology has changed verdicts recently.
Having had a loved one falsely accused, KNOWING he's innocent and then knowing how much pertinent information is kept from the jury... I would never be able to sit on one. My first question would be, "do we get to see and hear ALL the evidence, or just the carefully selected bits and pieces that support your agenda?"
My sympathy, faeryedark.
We, myself included, are just happy that a dangerous person is locked away and the cops and the system are on our side on that point, but there are times, too many, in which innocent people are convicted. This does happen, even without police planting evidence or maybe subtly torturing a mentally fragile person. Sometimes it is a preponderance of evidence pointing to the wrong person.
During trials you cannot know if the person has a past record. Everyone else does, but not the juror. That, in itself, is horrible.
The problem with high profile cases is they get over scrutinized in the public. There is evidence against them, usually sufficient to convict, but the scrutiny gets microscopic so that they can't get convicted unless there's a video showing it, well not then either. It changes from overwhelming evidence to having to have 100% proof. I think professional jurors is the way to go.
The reason why we have a jury of peers is because professional jurors, way back in the early days, were thought to be just extensions of the current political regime. Beyond a reasonable doubt should be just that.
We even have jury nullification written into our laws because sometimes there are extenuating circumstances that the law does not properly address.
You'd think, though, that people who spend a lot of their lives committing crimes should be thought of differently than someone who has a clean record. Most people would give the clean record guy a much bigger benefit of the doubt than the career criminal.
It would be a sin if he got a new trial. Colette's brother who is now 73, is on top of it. He deserves nothing else but to rot in that prison until he dies.
It would be a sin if he got a new trial. Colette's brother who is now 73, is on top of it. He deserves nothing else but to rot in that prison until he dies.
Agree with you. He was tried and convicted and there was a good amount of evidence against him.
The reason why we have a jury of peers is because professional jurors, way back in the early days, were thought to be just extensions of the current political regime. Beyond a reasonable doubt should be just that.
We even have jury nullification written into our laws because sometimes there are extenuating circumstances that the law does not properly address.
You'd think, though, that people who spend a lot of their lives committing crimes should be thought of differently than someone who has a clean record. Most people would give the clean record guy a much bigger benefit of the doubt than the career criminal.
Yes, having a long criminal record does indeed matter. After all, past behavior and history is very indicative and a predictor of future behavior. But, not for the long career criminals.
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.
He was tried and convicted and there was a good amount of evidence against him.
