If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TampaBay.com (St. Petersburg Tim)   Judge tells jurors after every break not to research the death-penalty defendant. Juror's all like "Hey, let's look this guy up on Google"   (tampabay.com) divider line 19
    More: Florida, Google, death penalty, murder trial, Singh, leniency  
•       •       •

10571 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Oct 2012 at 3:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-12 04:06:21 AM
3 votes:
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.
2012-10-12 03:59:44 AM
3 votes:

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.
2012-10-12 03:43:51 AM
3 votes:

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.
2012-10-12 12:12:39 AM
3 votes:
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.
2012-10-12 06:51:31 AM
2 votes:
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.
2012-10-12 04:05:09 AM
2 votes:

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.
2012-10-12 10:26:56 AM
1 votes:

Waldo Pepper: lying to get on a jury is in my opinion one of the lowest acts a person can do as citizen of the U.S.


If you're smart enough to lie to get onto a jury, you probably have more sense then 99.9999999999999999% of jurors.
2012-10-12 10:02:27 AM
1 votes:

Boojum2k: You can lie when asked if you would consider the death penalty.


*shrug* No need to lie. "Yes, I'd consider it." I'd consider it unethical, expensive, ineffective as a deterrent, prone to irreversible error, and something I'd be very reluctant to have on my conscience. But I'd consider it.
2012-10-12 08:59:42 AM
1 votes:

Saruman_W: Besides, even then plenty of murderers get off scott free because they managed to hide alot of the important evidence or their lawyers were much better at gaming the system. And once acquitted they will NEVER be retried. And this doesn't bother you as much potential innocents being put to death?


I'd rather a million murderers go free then one innocent person be put to death.

That innocent person could be me!
2012-10-12 07:56:09 AM
1 votes:
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.
2012-10-12 06:59:04 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-10-12 06:32:53 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-10-12 06:27:32 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-10-12 06:15:25 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-10-12 04:15:49 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-10-12 04:01:37 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-10-12 03:57:58 AM
1 votes:
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.
2012-10-12 03:29:52 AM
1 votes:

namatad: 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, it does sound like this is a HANGE'EM HIGH judge.
He is DETERMINED to get this guy put to death.
Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have gotten him sentenced to life with no parole??


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.
2012-10-12 02:06:00 AM
1 votes:

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, it does sound like this is a HANGE'EM HIGH judge.
He is DETERMINED to get this guy put to death.
Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have gotten him sentenced to life with no parole??
 
Displayed 19 of 19 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report