 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012202273.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
I thought Warp might be interested in seeing a story about why Americans
think juries are a good idea. I'm not saying I'm agreeing or not, but this
is the sort of thing people argue that's a good reason for juries.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012202273.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
> I thought Warp might be interested in seeing a story about why Americans
> think juries are a good idea. I'm not saying I'm agreeing or not, but this
> is the sort of thing people argue that's a good reason for juries.
OTOH, how many examples are there where the jury has convicted the
defendant because of prejudice rather than neutral objectivity, or because
of not having sufficient expertise in order to form an informed judgement?
How many have convicted someone lightly because of a sentiment of "I don't
want to be sitting here all day, I'll just agree with the others"?
I guess that those cases don't often end up in Washington Post...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> OTOH, how many examples are there where the jury has convicted the
> defendant because of prejudice rather than neutral objectivity,
That certainly happens too. It's not like judges and cops aren't prejudiced
too, tho.
Sometimes a hearing will be moved to a different town because the prejudice
around the case is too high. I'm not sure you could get away with accusing a
judge of that.
> I guess that those cases don't often end up in Washington Post...
As I said, it isn't necessarily the best way of working things. This just
gives you the reason people are in *favor* of it. I didn't say that
overwhelms the reasons it's bad.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4b5c9e29@news.povray.org...
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012202273.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
>
> I thought Warp might be interested in seeing a story about why Americans
> think juries are a good idea. I'm not saying I'm agreeing or not, but
this
> is the sort of thing people argue that's a good reason for juries.
1) The implicit assumption that only a jury would think that way, and the
judge would not, that is, juries have integrity and judges do not, is
unwarranted.
2) I'm not a believer in two wrongs make a right philosophy. I believe both
wrongs should be punished. Convinct the criminal, and then try/punish the
police.
3) Problem with the jury system is pandering by lawyers to essentially
losers of the social strata and driving up costs.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
I'm not advocating that juries are better. I'm simply pointing out the sort
of reason people give for juries being better.
A benevolent dictatorship wins over a democracy any day. The problem is
making sure it stays benevolent.
> 2) I'm not a believer in two wrongs make a right philosophy. I believe both
> wrongs should be punished. Convinct the criminal, and then try/punish the
> police.
Oh, and incidentally, this doesn't work in practice, which is why it's
illegal to introduce evidence that was obtained illegally, for example.
> 3) Problem with the jury system is pandering by lawyers to essentially
> losers of the social strata and driving up costs.
And I have no idea what this means.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-1-2010 20:23, Darren New wrote:
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012202273.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
>
>
> I thought Warp might be interested in seeing a story about why Americans
> think juries are a good idea. I'm not saying I'm agreeing or not, but
> this is the sort of thing people argue that's a good reason for juries.
>
A couple of remarks:
- the judge in our system often catches these things, so it does not
mean that a jury system is better. IMO
- I think judges are more likely to catch this than arbitrary citizens
- This guy got a decent defence lawyer. How common is that? I have heard
some people claim that poor people often get lazy ones.
- The whole police operation is absolutely illegal here.
but if the Americans think this kind of exceptions is any justification
that is fine by me, as long as I don't have to live in such a country. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/25/10 11:51, andrel wrote:
> A couple of remarks:
> - the judge in our system often catches these things, so it does not
> mean that a jury system is better. IMO
IMO, that's too much power for a judge to have. At least with a jury,
you have 12 people vs one with a judge.
> - I think judges are more likely to catch this than arbitrary citizens
This wasn't a legal issue - so why would a judge be more likely to
catch this (beyond simply experience with arguments that often arise in
courts)? He's no more qualified in these matters than an ordinary person
is.
> - The whole police operation is absolutely illegal here.
You mean stings? I don't have too strong feelings about it. Entrapment,
though, is something I generally feel should be illegal.
--
Every hard drive I've ever bought has been larger than all my previous
hard drives combined. And this is without even trying.
--Seen on Slashdot.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26-1-2010 6:48, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 01/25/10 11:51, andrel wrote:
>> A couple of remarks:
>> - the judge in our system often catches these things, so it does not
>> mean that a jury system is better. IMO
>
> IMO, that's too much power for a judge to have. At least with a jury,
> you have 12 people vs one with a judge.
All our judges are appointed. Trained to see past layers tricks. They
are assumed to have no link with any political party nor with any
company. I don't know anyone of them that is a public figure. So I think
they are better qualified then me to do justice.
>
>> - I think judges are more likely to catch this than arbitrary citizens
>
> This wasn't a legal issue - so why would a judge be more likely to
> catch this (beyond simply experience with arguments that often arise in
> courts)? He's no more qualified in these matters than an ordinary person
> is.
Experience indeed.
>> - The whole police operation is absolutely illegal here.
>
> You mean stings?
yes.
> I don't have too strong feelings about it. Entrapment,
> though, is something I generally feel should be illegal.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Entrapment, though, is something I generally feel should be illegal.
Entrapment already is illegal. However, buying drugs from a drug dealer
isn't entrapment.
Entrapment is when the cop tells you to do something you know would
otherwise be illegal, then punishes you for it. Entrapment would be a cop
waving you through a red light, then giving you a ticket for going thru a
red light.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
> > Entrapment, though, is something I generally feel should be illegal.
> Entrapment already is illegal. However, buying drugs from a drug dealer
> isn't entrapment.
> Entrapment is when the cop tells you to do something you know would
> otherwise be illegal, then punishes you for it. Entrapment would be a cop
> waving you through a red light, then giving you a ticket for going thru a
> red light.
A cop buying drugs is not entrapment, but a cop *selling* drugs (in order
to arrest the people who buy them) would be, wouldn't it? Or a cop posing
as a prostitute to arrest people who try to buy her services (at least in
places where that's illegal).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
