On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:43:24 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> Whose side are you on? Don't give Warp ideas :)
>
>While I understand you're kidding, 

That's true ;)

>I'm not taking sides. I'm discussing 
>the ideas that Warp presented. I'm perfectly willing to be convinced. 

I won't give those ideas the complement of rational argument.

>(I'm not convinced, but I'm willing to be. :-)


:-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Having sat on a jury, I can say that your impressions are not in line 
with my experience.

In the deliberations I participated in, emotion was checked at the door 
(it was a drug case), and the jury was provided with a large packet of 
information about the laws pertaining to the case provided by both sides 
of the case.

The process of voir dire was quite interesting as well - the process is 
designed to eliminate those who may get emotional about the case (as was 
the case in a federal case my wife was called to serve for - the case was 
very close to a situation her ex-husband's family had been through, and 
it was quite traumatic - she was excused as a result after a one-on-one 
discussion with the judge).

The drug case I participated in was very interesting from several points 
of view.  There was information in the packet that indicated that the 
defendant may not be guilty of one of the charges he was accused of.  The 
initial vote in the jury room was unanimous on one count, and all but one 
(I was the one) voted in favor of a conviction on the second count.  This 
led to discussion, as it should, but not coercive discussion.  I 
explained my point of view based on the materials, and the others 
explained their point of view also based on the materials we'd been 
provided.  In the end, I agreed with them, but I went and talked to the 
judge after the case was over about it, and he explained a little more of 
the process (that the jury doesn't see) and how those materials are put 
together.

The packet that's put together is assembled by both the prosecution and 
the defense, and includes anything either side feels helps their case - 
case histories, cited law, etc.  The jury can ask any question they want 
about the materials they have or about the law - and most juries do spend 
a fair bit of time understanding the intent behind the law they are 
applying against the facts they've been presented.

The idea in the US court system (not sure about other countries, but I 
suspect it's similar) is that the jury decides the facts of the case - 
they judge the character of the witnesses called.  They then use those 
determined facts to identify what it is that the defendant is guilty of 
(if anything).

Is it perfect in all cases?  Absolutely not.  But at the same time, 
putting the power solely in the hands of the government is a supremely 
bad idea.

All in all, I'd have to say it's a good system, certainly the best system 
we have.  I've had the opportunity to talk to judges, lawyers, cops, and 
convicted felons about the system and the ones I've spoken to all have 
said that they think it's a good system.  Yes, even the felon said that, 
and he's been convicted twice.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:47:36 -0400, Halbert wrote:

> I could add to it that most people serving on a jury don't even want to
> be there.

In my opinion, that's their loss.  I found the process to be quite 
enjoyable, and I learned a lot from it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 07:06:38 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   It's still better to have people who have years of education and
> experience on criminology and forensic science in general than random
> people who have no such things at all.

Those people *are* involved, Warp.  They're the expert witnesses, the 
prosecution and defense attorneys, and the judge.  They're just not the 
*only* people involved.

In my work in IT, it often made sense when I had a problem to try to 
explain it to my wife.  She's not an expert in IT (by any stretch), but I 
found that trying to explain things to her made them clearer for me.  
Having "John Q. Public" involved means that the prosecution and defense 
both have to really work on their arguments to explain them to the 
layperson.  Since a jury can ask any question they want about what's been 
presented or the law, anything that's not clear can be clarified.

And in exceptional cases where the jury comes to the wrong verdict (which 
does happen), if the judge doesn't feel that the jury's vote was 
appropriate (in either direction), the judge can set aside the verdict.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:01:39 +0200, Gilles Tran wrote:

> Note that the US is quite unique in that it allows jury trials for both
> civil and criminal cases, and in the latter case jury trials are
> (theoretically at least) possible even for lesser crimes.

Something I learned just recently is that in some venues (maybe not all), 
a defendant can even request a jury trial in small claims court.  New 
York County is one of those places.  I was very surprised to see that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:26:30 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   I thought the Constitution (and the comissions created to impose it)
> exists precisely to stop law-makers (and, in this case, judges) from
> creating unfair laws.

Sure, and the Constitution has really reigned in GWB, hasn't it? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:37:58 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   The big problem I see in this case is that 12 persons *who have not
> been elected by the people* are representing the people. They may or may
> not truely represent the opinion of the majority, at random.
> 
>   Also, these 12 people usually have no education nor experience about
> how law, politics and criminology works. What is worse, the views and
> expectations of these people on these subjects may be colored, if not
> even twisted, by the media. Thus they might not be the best people to
> decide about critical issues related to these things.

This is why the process in the US includes voir dire (jury selection), 
rather than just grabbing 12 random people off the street and saying 
"you're it for this case".

Both the prosecution and the defense question the potential jurors, and 
both have to agree on the jurors selected.

It's not as "random" as you seem to think it is.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:01:52 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   Imagine if the leaders of the country were decided by the vote of 12
> random people. *That* would be absurd.

There's every possibility that happened in the last two US presidential 
elections, and every possibility that will continue in this one.

Some believe that GWB became President not through the election, but 
through a court decision.  Both times.

This time around, there's a possibility that the candidate selected for 
the democratic party will be selected by the "superdelegates" in the DNC, 
rather than by the popular vote or the votes of the normal delgates.  It 
*could* happen that the candidate with a minority of the popular vote in 
the primaries (and a minority of the states' delegates) could be the 
democratic candidate.

And that person could well become the next POTUS.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:05:20 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> But if I were to stand trial for a crime I would like to be judged by
>> people like me not professional jurists.
> 
>   Well, then we just have to disagree on that.
> 
>   Personally I would feel uncomfortable having random people who can eg.
> have their judgement clouded by their emotions, and who might eg.
> convict someone "just in case" (ie, better to convict an innocent than
> having a criminal running free) judge me, if I know I am innocent.

Well, as Darren said, in the US at least, you have that option.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:01:52 -0400, Warp wrote:

> >   Imagine if the leaders of the country were decided by the vote of 12
> > random people. *That* would be absurd.

> There's every possibility that happened in the last two US presidential 
> elections, and every possibility that will continue in this one.

  That's not what I meant, and you know it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message