The right to a fair trial

[toycar]

So I was wondering what you guys think about the jury selection process for the zimmerman trial.



*****I DO NOT WANT TO ARGUE ABOUT TRAYVON MARTIN OR GEORGE ZIMMERMAN I AM USING IT AS AN EXAMPLE*****




So anyways, they ended up with an all women, mostly white jury. I was wondering how they think that is "fair" or whatever when people get to pick jurrors? Also, mostly white, all women, doesn't that scream "somethings weird about this?"


Given the process, do you think its even possible for people like the boston kid to get a "fair" trial? How could they possibly assemble a jury of peers that wasn't biased at this point? Curious what your guys take was on stuff like this?


Do you think a different jury would've convicted Casey Anthony? If so, is it FAIR to people that could've equally gotten off with a different jury but were found guilty?


Also, in the Casey Anthony thing, if a different could have have convicted her-in theory-is it really fair that you can appeal all you want but you get aquitted once and thats it its over?

[Joey GT-R]

I don't like that it's all women but at least the backgrounds of the women are legit, almost all are women, and they all I believe it was said have experience with firearms.

What I don't like is that (and forgive me is this is interpreted as sexist) they probably could convict him, but they probably won't rule in favor of the death penalty. Again I don't mean to offend any female members but I just don't see it.

[toycar]

I don't like that it's all women but at least the backgrounds of the women are legit, almost all are women, and they all I believe it was said have experience with firearms.

What I don't like is that (and forgive me is this is interpreted as sexist) they probably could convict him, but they probably won't rule in favor of the death penalty. Again I don't mean to offend any female members but I just don't see it.

Well its not a death penalty case, but I think what you are saying is that an all woman panel is most likely NOT to push for the death?



I agree with that. Also, if an all male jury was likely to push for death, is it fair for the defendant to be put to death if a different jury would've been cool with life in prison?

[Joey GT-R]

Oh yea I forgot they ruled it second-degree.

I guess that's a question that is rarely asked. Some people clearly don't believe in the death penalty while others do.


A summary of the jurors can be found here. I'm not even quite sure these women are impartial(at least all of them). But honestly people form opinions so quick, unless you were in a coma for the time surrounding a crime how can you not lean one way or the other? If anything they should rule out the fanatics, and try to find people who can be swayed either way.

[toycar]

Oh yea I forgot they ruled it second-degree.

I guess that's a question that is rarely asked. Some people clearly don't believe in the death penalty while others do.


A summary of the jurors can be found here. I'm not even quite sure these women are impartial(at least all of them). But honestly people form opinions so quick, unless you were in a coma for the time surrounding a crime how can you not lean one way or the other? If anything they should rule out the fanatics, and try to find people who can be swayed either way.

Thats pretty much how I feel too.


How could anyone be unbiased about the Boston bombing suspect or the shooter in Colorado? There is NO DOUBT they did it-does that make me biased or observant?

[reklipz]

I want to join in the conversation, but I have been under a rock for the past three/four weeks.

As far as whether or not the system is fair, I would have to say yes. Whether or not you get a jury that isn't as forgiving as another might have potentially been is completely up to chance; that's fair. Whether or not that's right is a different question, but I think it's pretty damn good in that regard, and to make it better (truly impartial and random) is a bit prohibitive at this point. You already noted a reason why making it more impartial is difficult: because word spreads so fast and people form opinions so quickly, consciously or not. Further, the system already has process to account for this: if you feel you can't be impartial on a jury, I believe you're supposed to inform someone and you will be dismissed. Simple as that. If people aren't wiling to do that for the accused, I find it difficult to believe they are willing to work to create a better system.

[Ralphie]

We shouldn't have a jury...

cases should be decided by a panel of judges like they do outside the US.

Men who know the law and are sworn to it, not a random grouping of people who would rather be home looking at child porn.

Fuck that.

Rather be carried by 6 then judged by 12 no?

[toycar]

We shouldn't have a jury...

cases should be decided by a panel of judges like they do outside the US.

Men who know the law and are sworn to it, not a random grouping of people who would rather be home looking at child porn.

Fuck that.

Rather be carried by 6 then judged by 12 no?

I thought about this thread when the 5-4 ruling came down yesterday about voters rights.



So, if judges, aka citizens with robes on, could decide your fate on a 5-4 count, I'd rather take my chances with a jury-atleast they are all forced to agree or nothing happens.


Lol



Fair trials are a fallacy. I think the acting skills of the prosecutor and the attorneys seem to be relevant in active court too. Shouldn't be, but some of this shit is damn near theatrical.

[SilverShadow]

I always thought the selection was up to the lawyers. Yet there is certain ways to fool them. I proved I could get dismissed easy. I have a hearing problem and yet I could hear most of the words spoken in the courtroom. I was selected as on of the main 12 ..without telling them I had hearing problem. Then the next day I wore a hearing aid and within 20 minutes was excused and driving to work. The entire structure of the proceedings are set and the lawyers only want what is needed for them to move on. It's all for protocol.
The jury of peers is what I think our founding fathers' referred to as those of same back ground or race, and town; not from those in England. I'm sure woman were not part of the jury pool. They could not have imagined such a diverse population as we have today. We have a vast pool of citizens to choose from that includes not only woman, but men and woman of every spectrum of race and occupation and educational background. The 12 jurist profiles are endless. I think now it would still mean Americans, people closely "of your peers" this meaning we share the same freedoms and rights, thus peers.
My 2¢

[toycar]

I always thought the selection was up to the lawyers. Yet there is certain ways to fool them. I proved I could get dismissed easy. I have a hearing problem and yet I could hear most of the words spoken in the courtroom. I was selected as on of the main 12 ..without telling them I had hearing problem. Then the next day I wore a hearing aid and within 20 minutes was excused and driving to work. The entire structure of the proceedings are set and the lawyers only want what is needed for them to move on. It's all for protocol.
The jury of peers is what I think our founding fathers' referred to as those of same back ground or race, and town; not from those in England. I'm sure woman were not part of the jury pool. They could not have imagined such a diverse population as we have today. We have a vast pool of citizens to choose from that includes not only woman, but men and woman of every spectrum of race and occupation and educational background. The 12 jurist profiles are endless. I think now it would still mean Americans, people closely "of your peers" this meaning we share the same freedoms and rights, thus peers.
My 2¢

Very good points.

[SilverShadow]

Interesting:
I am Jewish ..but not orthodox. I have learned that the Torah, essentially the book God gave Moses that Jews use to guide how we should live, has many,many discussions on law as our daily life encounters. It poses debate and Gods and mens solution to different scenarios. For example: If a wallet falls on the ground...do you return it or keep it? If you are a store owner and it is in your store...is it now yours? This is a moral question and the answer is debated in the Torah. A answer is not always the answer. In some parts of Israel, this is where the law turns to and how the judges deal with moral issues. In the U.S., most of the population believes in the words of the Bible. If this is true, then our judicial system should use it for reference and model regarding moral cases. In a slight way it does ..as our Constitution was vastly based on the Bible and Torah as well as the 10 commandments. But lawyers and politicians got it and mangled the hell out of it that you need someone to decipher most of it. Books and books of codes!
Most Jews abhor the idea of a religious run country..even if it was a Jewish one, but do not object to a more religious aware civilization. Maybe with more, there would be less crime and less need for so many trials. Doesn't matter what faith our children have... as long as it teaches love and respect for others.
*I still think the aliens are laughing there butts off at us about "god" ..and know the real truth. (wait...they don't have butts!)

[toycar]

Interesting:
I am Jewish ..but not orthodox. I have learned that the Torah, essentially the book God gave Moses that Jews use to guide how we should live, has many,many discussions on law as our daily life encounters. It poses debate and Gods and mens solution to different scenarios. For example: If a wallet falls on the ground...do you return it or keep it? If you are a store owner and it is in your store...is it now yours? This is a moral question and the answer is debated in the Torah. A answer is not always the answer. In some parts of Israel, this is where the law turns to and how the judges deal with moral issues. In the U.S., most of the population believes in the words of the Bible. If this is true, then our judicial system should use it for reference and model regarding moral cases. In a slight way it does ..as our Constitution was vastly based on the Bible and Torah as well as the 10 commandments. But lawyers and politicians got it and mangled the hell out of it that you need someone to decipher most of it. Books and books of codes!
Most Jews abhor the idea of a religious run country..even if it was a Jewish one, but do not object to a more religious aware civilization. Maybe with more, there would be less crime and less need for so many trials. Doesn't matter what faith our children have... as long as it teaches love and respect for others.
*I still think the aliens are laughing there butts off at us about "god" ..and know the real truth. (wait...they don't have butts!)

LOL @ aliens comment





I agree with you that ANYTHING that teaches people to love and respect eachother would equate to less crime and less trials.


It would lead to happier people with more pride and self esteem too

[SilverShadow]

Just remember..life is not a quest to do good by God so that you go to heaven, it's to have a relationship with God before then.

[mozzandherb]

This should not turn into a religious discussion, but I think it is an interesting thread so I will keep it open, but please leave religion out of it.

[SilverShadow]

On both the sites I manage and I'm the Administrator...I clearly state no religion and have made a separate page for it. With all rules here and confusing notions of where to post..not once have I seen it say "no religion substance allowed. But the topic warrants the use of intelligent facts to base the question fairly. As we all know..when in a court room...you swear to tell the truth....with a hand on a Bible...."So help me God" Sorry but it (the religion) is there already.