kingoomieiii: I don't even know where the nearest law school IS and I know jurists aren't allowed to do their own research or hunt down their own evidence.

Well, grocery stores let us do our own checkouts, so why can't we do our own lawyering?

fusillade762: Reached later in the day, Singh said he hardly remembers the judge's written order. "I remember a piece of paper," he said. "I didn't read the whole thing."

When a JUDGE gives you something you farking read it.

also the article points out the judge say it every break and everytime they leave...

Fockn Google and Wikipedia..people use them as if they were asking an all knowing God a question. What did we ever do without them? We knew nothing..like cavemen we were

Boojum2k: Wrong answer. The crime this man is accused of is eligible for the death penalty, which is a legal sentence in Florida. If you cannot vote to apply it, you cannot serve as a juror on such a case.

Eligible.
If enough citizens can never be found that are willing to apply a death sentence, do they simply keep putting the trial off ad infinitum? At what point should they say "well, since no one in this state wants to kill prisoners, maybe, just maybe, we just go for a life sentence."

Personally, if on jury selection, I'd lie. I'd tell them I could vote for the death sentence, but I wouldn't. And if I looked up the defendants name on google, I sure as fark wouldn't be telling anybody about it so the judge could rape me.

If you can guess a judge is hell bent on making sure some guy gets executed, maybe you should not fark with the dude.

Pic of what Vishnu googling might look like

Are people so stupid that they can't read something on the internet and still come to a just conclusion? Hell, whatever is on the net is probably better info than one would hear in a trial anyway. It's almost like the point of a trial is to hear emotional arguments based on a doubly sanitized set of half truths. What ever happened to a jury of peers sitting down with all the available information and coming to a rational determination about crime and punishment? Have we just given up on this? Vote Libertarian for freedom and sensible juries.

Boojum2k: I'd snark, but really? You'd lie under oath?

I have little respect for the revenue generating machine our legal system has become.
They can't prove or disprove my personal feelings on the topic, and I would have no desire to tell them.

I wonder how many of those people who said they couldn't vote for the death penalty knowingly perjured themselves to get out of jury duty? I bet quite a few.

Boojum2k: Then they'll probably eliminate the death penalty in Florida by law, first. Only takes a law to be passed.

Good point: It takes 50% to pass a law, but for 60 out of 60 citizens to be selected at random? Using a binomial distribution, to have 95% odds that you would get at least 12 jurors who support the death penalty out of a panel of 60, only 29% of the population at large needs to support it.

Boojum2k: I just read your profile.
I'm pro-choice, pro-death penalty, pro-gay marriage, & pro-gun.


1) Holy fark, you're me
2) 10/10, you got me

heheh :) I really wasn't trying, just being snarky.

Personally, I find the whole idea of a jury system rather ludicrous. The whole idea is to find 12 people so ignorant that they don't know anything about the case they're going to listen to, because if they knew anything they'd have "preconceived notions" and are therefore ineligible. And what they get to listen to is basically "spin" by two opposing factions that are well-versed in spin. And without any opportunity for the jurors to do any sort of independent research to verify the claims of the two factions, it often comes down to a contest of who can spin the best.

Boojum2k:
Good point. I wouldnt try to get out of jury duty in the first place, and would consider the death penalty if the evidence warrants, but it would have to be a high level of confidence in that evidence. I'd also be fine with eliminating the death penalty, by law.

I'm only conditionally pro-death penalty myself. Conditions being incontrovertible proof. Perhaps video, and the murder weapon with the defendant's fingerprints. I'm pretty leary of eye-witness accounts even.

jack and jill went up the hill to fetch a pale of water ..

jack fail down and broke his crown and jill came tumbling after ...

i have no ideal what that has to do with this story ..

Boojum2k: namatad: Actually, completely and totally false.
Jury Nullification is legal in the US. Period.

That's a gray area, really. Legally, it can become jury misconduct, but you're not likely to be prosecuted for it. So not Period.

You can lie when asked if you would consider the death penalty. And a more honest juror ratting you out could result in you spending time. Depends on the state, the prosecutor, the judge, and the other eleven people on the jury to begin with.

Yeah, jury nullification is not legal at all. At least in my jurisdiction. You can be disbarred for even suggesting it to the jury. If you can argue it in a way that is not obvious, you do it, but it isn't easy.

We should have it though.

/wish I could serve on a jury
//never will, and I wouldn't even have to lie to not serve!

namatad: Boojum2k: Wrong answer. The crime this man is accused of is eligible for the death penalty, which is a legal sentence in Florida. If you cannot vote to apply it, you cannot serve as a juror on such a case.

Actually, completely and totally false.
Jury Nullification is legal in the US. Period.

The jury decides both the facts of the case and the law.
The fact that the judge lies and tells the jury different, is neither here nor there.

But go ahead and pretend that you know more than everyone else.

/We REALLY need more people to learn the truth about jury nullification.

This isn't Hollywood, and we don't live in the 12 angry men universe. It is not the job of a juror to perform his own personal investigation of the defendant and of the facts of the crime. It is his or her job to interpret the evidence given to them by the Defense and the Prosecution.

namatad: Jury Nullification is legal in the US. Period.

Since there are numerous states where, if a juror doesn't agree to follow the letter of the law he can be legally removed from a jury, I'm afraid that period was just some blood leaking from your vagina.

Now if you claimed it was constitutional, I'd agree with you. But constitutional is not the same as legal. Not by a long shot.

nyrB: Personally, I find the whole idea of a jury system rather ludicrous. The whole idea is to find 12 people so ignorant that they don't know anything about the case they're going to listen to, because if they knew anything they'd have "preconceived notions" and are therefore ineligible. And what they get to listen to is basically "spin" by two opposing factions that are well-versed in spin. And without any opportunity for the jurors to do any sort of independent research to verify the claims of the two factions, it often comes down to a contest of who can spin the best.

This is how the cop that murdered my cousin was acquitted. A couple of jurors stuck to their guns so there were a couple hung charges which the DA dropped later.

BoxOfBees: It's almost like the point of a trial is to hear emotional arguments based on a doubly sanitized set of half truths.

Almost? That's EXACTLY the point of a trial. Ask any trial lawyer. It's a competition between two lawyers to see who can sway the jury or maneuver the other into a trap.They learn the same tactics advertisers and police interrogators learn, and use them in the same ways to manipulate their audience. While justice was the intended side-effect, it has damned little to do with the process any more because showmanship outweighs facts, at least here and now.

nyrB: Personally, I find the whole idea of a jury system rather ludicrous. The whole idea is to find 12 people so ignorant that they don't know anything about the case they're going to listen to, because if they knew anything they'd have "preconceived notions" and are therefore ineligible. And what they get to listen to is basically "spin" by two opposing factions that are well-versed in spin. And without any opportunity for the jurors to do any sort of independent research to verify the claims of the two factions, it often comes down to a contest of who can spin the best.



Really? Independant investigation?

So you would rather go from a system that brings in a jury with as little bias as possible and presents a case with testimony from experts in their fields which are vetted by judicial system, and allow some Juror who's life experience may be flipping burgers for 20 years to conduct their own "independent investigation", which they are not qualified in the least to do?

You're expecting a juror to be an expert in tool markings, in forensic laboratory analysis, blood spatter, crime scene reconstruction, and any other numerous sciences?

Yeah. Forgive me if I don't share your enthusiasm for letting 12 random people conduct pseudoscientific inquiries. Maybe we should have seances too, just to see what the dead guy saw? Or perhaps they can learn from the University of Google. After all, their ignorance is just as good as expert knowledge, apparently.

There's a reason we have reasonable doubt. And there's also a reason why 12 Angry Men is fiction.

dood

was the criminal that stupid? Then its a fair trial!

BoxOfBees: Are people so stupid that they can't read something on the internet and still come to a just conclusion? Hell, whatever is on the net is probably better info than one would hear in a trial anyway. It's almost like the point of a trial is to hear emotional arguments based on a doubly sanitized set of half truths. What ever happened to a jury of peers sitting down with all the available information and coming to a rational determination about crime and punishment? Have we just given up on this?

There was an episode of the TV show Becker where the running gag was that the attorneys deliberately chose ignorant and unread people over anyone showing intelligence. That episode hit a little too close to home for me--it was actually spot on. I know that when I previously served on juries I almost always wanted to ask a whole lot more questions that the attorneys were not asking, wanted to know more background information on the defendant, and in one particular case thought that the case was decided by the prosecutor being way more slick than the defense attorney. I always left the courtroom feeling extremely irked by the entire affair, not only that it was an assbackwards way of going about doing things, but that everyone in the entire place got paid but myself. Not to mention that I am aware that if one of these court employees or members of their families did a crime, they would get preferential treatment. Ain't no wondering in my mind why they treat everyone as fools.

I will go to great measures never to serve on a jury again---and this arrogant judge has just re-enforced that.

Boojum2k: ReverendJasen: Boojum2k: Wrong answer. The crime this man is accused of is eligible for the death penalty, which is a legal sentence in Florida. If you cannot vote to apply it, you cannot serve as a juror on such a case.

Eligible.
If enough citizens can never be found that are willing to apply a death sentence, do they simply keep putting the trial off ad infinitum? At what point should they say "well, since no one in this state wants to kill prisoners, maybe, just maybe, we just go for a life sentence."

Personally, if on jury selection, I'd lie. I'd tell them I could vote for the death sentence, but I wouldn't. And if I looked up the defendants name on google, I sure as fark wouldn't be telling anybody about it so the judge could rape me.

I just read your profile.
I'm pro-choice, pro-death penalty, pro-gay marriage, & pro-gun.


1) Holy fark, you're me
2) 10/10, you got me

I know you was trolling, but in all seriousness if I lived in a death penalty state and was called to serve on a jury in a capital case, I would most certainly lie under oath to get on the jury and save a life.

I don't care what The State says you did, I don't trust any institution as incompetent as government to decide matters of life an death, and I certainly don't trust myself and 11 other people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty.

DrPainMD: Ordinary Genius: Boojum2k: namatad: Actually, completely and totally false.
Jury Nullification is legal in the US. Period.

That's a gray area, really. Legally, it can become jury misconduct, but you're not likely to be prosecuted for it. So not Period.

You can lie when asked if you would consider the death penalty. And a more honest juror ratting you out could result in you spending time. Depends on the state, the prosecutor, the judge, and the other eleven people on the jury to begin with.

Yeah, jury nullification is not legal at all. At least in my jurisdiction. You can be disbarred for even suggesting it to the jury. If you can argue it in a way that is not obvious, you do it, but it isn't easy.

We should have it though.

/wish I could serve on a jury
//never will, and I wouldn't even have to lie to not serve!

There is no law against jury nullification in the US, either local, state or federal. No juror is legally required to vote guilty under any circumstances. Lawyers getting disbarred for suggesting it is not relevant.

You are correct in the explicit sense. However, practically speaking, no. In just about every jurisdiction, jurors take an oath to apply the law to the case, without regard for whether the person *should* be convicted or not. In that regard then you do not have it. Many times have I seen jurors say they felt the law was wrong (which even judges say should not come into play in reaching a decision) but convicted because the elements were met.

The question is really whether it should be allowed to be argued by attorneys. So I do think whether you can be disbarred for suggesting it is relevant. But that's just me.

BronyMedic: there's also a reason why 12 Angry Men is fiction.

I think perhaps you found the reason for that line of thinking... I know in my middle school civics class (the last time the jury system was talked about during my education), we all had to watch this movie, the result being that we were basically encouraged to pull out knives and stab them into tables. Er... that we were encouraged to be the defense attorney ourselves.

Benevolent Misanthrope: fusillade762: Reached later in the day, Singh said he hardly remembers the judge's written order. "I remember a piece of paper," he said. "I didn't read the whole thing."

When a JUDGE gives you something you farking read it.

Truer words were never spoken. You don't fark with judges, they have absolute power in their little fiefdoms and they absolutely LOVE using it. Worse than cops.

On the other hand, Singh wasn't too stupid to get out of jury duty...

This will get better. Screw popcorn I'm making coffee!

Why shouldn't people research?

I mean. The lawyers are lying. The defendant is lying, and the judge is making shiat up as they go.

Furthermore your "peers" are functionally retarded.

If you want to get the truth about someone in a trial, the internet is the only place to find out. And that is a truly horrific state of affairs.

I wish the Death Penalty were a lot more swift. None of this waiting 20 years crap. WTF are they waiting for? They've been found guilty, so carry out their damn sentences and put a bullet in their brains!

Saruman_W: I wish the Death Penalty were a lot more swift. None of this waiting 20 years crap. WTF are they waiting for? They've been found guilty, so carry out their damn sentences and put a bullet in their brains!

Because flawed DNA evidence has acquitted thousands of criminals, and many death row inmates.

fluffy2097: Why shouldn't people research?

I mean. The lawyers are lying. The defendant is lying, and the judge is making shiat up as they go.

Furthermore your "peers" are functionally retarded.

If you want to get the truth about someone in a trial, the internet is the only place to find out. And that is a truly horrific state of affairs.

I agree. Why should the judge tell people not to visit Google? So I go looking something up about the case, SFW? Maybe it makes me better informed about the bs being spouted by at least one, if not both sides. Maybe not.