Fully Informed Juries
Nope. They want you stupid. You’re more useful that way.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
September 17th, 2010 at 9:10 am
Sounds about right. Remember that these are the same people who write the laws and “represent” us in general. Imagine if there was a requirement that no lawyers were allowed in politics. The quality and clarity of law would likely be simplified so that a reasonable person actually could understand the law.
I still fail to see how this swayed the jury at all. What were they supposed to do to get that definition? Ask the judge? Who probably doesn’t have a good handle on the actual definition either?
September 17th, 2010 at 9:21 am
YUP! My Criminal Justice professors used to tell us”Never put your fate in the hands of twelve people who were too dumb to get out of jury duty” How true that is. They prefer that you NOT be aware of the law or how it works because then it is harder for the attourneys to SUBVERT the law and end run original intent.
September 17th, 2010 at 9:52 am
Hey, prosecutors want to win. You start letting a little thing like the truth get mixed in and the next thing you know, they’re doing traffic court.
Just yesterday, I read a post at Simple Justice on how the courts seek to keep actual relevant information away from the jury because “they can’t handle the truth.” Which is why the FBI doesn’t video interrogations:
September 17th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
JKB, there is no excuse for the FBI’s policy really. Its a product of their infinite arrogance.
September 17th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
I can’t speak for all prosecutors, but in the three offices where I’ve worked that wasn’t the intention at all; the attorneys in those three offices were absolutely dedicated to making sure justice was done, whether that means the state “wins” or “loses.”
Instead, part of it is that juries will simply ignore the law much of the time. I just witnessed a trial where the jury refused to convict based on a lack of forensic evidence, despite having all stated at voir dire that they absolutely understood that the state didn’t have to produce forensic evidence and that they would convict if the circumstantial evidence was enough.
Frankly, at a certain point, things can’t be dumbed down any more.
As for lawyers in politics…what you’re seeing right now is, in large part, actually a BEST-CASE scenario. Go talk to people you run into in your daily life and ask yourself how many you’d like writing your laws. A typical law from that might be “Don’t stole nobody.” What does that mean to you? Does it mean not to steal from anybody? Does it mean not to hit anybody in the face? Does it mean not to do kidnapping? The laws are (mostly) written to be as clear as possible, yet they still require refinement because there are so many variables to be considered. What’s a “wound”? Does it require blood to be spilled? Does it have to be exterior? Do interior bleeding or cracked ribs count? If I shoot you but it hits your necklace and only gives you a wicked bruise, have you been wounded? There’s a lot of case law on just these points, and it’s precisely because we don’t want people to be convicted on vague charges because we think it’s more important to convict people who do bad things than to make sure a defendant is charged with a particular crime.
September 17th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Several years ago while on jury duty, I made it to “the box” for the usual battery of questions in the jury selection process, regarding a case.
When asked if I could be, impartial, yada yada. I proceeded to say yes, and added in a spiel about being a big proponent of jury nullification, and a “fully informed juror” etc.
It was amazing how quickly I was dismissed and literally escorted out of the courtroom. I laughed all the way out of the courthouse.
September 17th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
I’m pretty sure I’ll never be on a jury. Around here they send out notices that you’re in the pool, and a questionnaire you have to fill out and return. I’ve done the form twice – asks about what you do and your educational background.
Near as I can tell, having a postgrad science background means I never even get called to come in, let alone actually serve. And I actually would like to do it. All in all, it’s just one more reason for me to think our legal system is a sham.