Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    10 Jul '17 17:40
    Originally posted by sh76
    So, you're sticking with the jury member = doctor thing?

    I feel as though No1 and I have had to go through this same thing 100 times, but jurors are not asked to become legal experts. They don't need to. They're asked to make common sense judgments that any mentally sane person is capable of making: Did the car run the light? Did Joe stab Jane? Did Don inten ...[text shortened]... compare the jurors patients, family members or the bystanders who tell the doctor what happened.
    "So, you're sticking with the jury member = doctor thing?"
    so, you're still not?

    "I feel as though No1 and I have had to go through this same thing 100 times, but jurors are not asked to become legal experts."
    they should be.

    "They don't need to. "
    if they are going to cause a man to lose his life they bloody well need to.


    "They're asked to make common sense judgments that any mentally sane person is capable of making: Did the car run the light? Did Joe stab Jane? Did Don intentionally under report his income taxes."
    Let me continue, " Is that testimony i forgot/didn't understand which this particular judge won't let me review it in the deliberation room important or can i say guilty/not guilty without considering it? " "Did the genetic evidence that expert witness presented is enough? What is genetics?" "Did the prosecutor present enough evidence?" "Did the defense attorney present enough evidence?" "Are my children doing ok because this trial has been going on for a while now?" "That man they say is a mafia hitman keeps looking at me, does he know who i am?".

    There are plenty more questions that someone that does have common sense might ask.

    "If you wanted to compare it to anything in medicine, then you should compare the jurors patients, family members or the bystanders who tell the doctor what happened"
    Hah, so happy you started to play. No, dear, i'm afraid you didn't get it. The jurors deliver the diagnostic. They are the doctors. The family and friends are cops/prosecutors/judges/witnesses. The problem is that doctors have the training to decide which statement made by the family of the patient is relevant, which is not. They have the knowledge and the authority to conduct tests, the jurors cannot.
  2. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    10 Jul '17 18:42
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "It's generally predictable on this Forum that some posters will stoop to low grade insults. "
    that you're actually lying or you're dumb? do you have another option? that you genuinely think that every american is qualified to be a juror (which means you're not lying) and that claim is actually true (which would disprove my claim that you're dumb).

    "Tha ...[text shortened]... d against the "tyranny of the big bad govnmint"😉 .

    that percentage means nothing on its own.
    Yes, the percentages mean something; it's common sense that an employee of the State (generally drawn from the most elitist and conservative element of the population) is more likely to convict those accused of crimes by another apparatus of the State than the People. This is reflected in results from numerous countries like Russia:

    Juries introduced real competition into Russia’s courts, granting acquittals in 15 to 20 percent of cases, compared with less than 1 percent in cases decided by judges.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/world/europe/16jury.html?pagewanted=all

    Naturally the State isn't too happy about that.
  3. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Jul '17 20:202 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder to Zahlanzi
    It's generally predictable on this Forum that some posters will stoop to low grade insults.
    That does not constitute any actual support for your arguments BTW.

    As sh and I have patiently explained to you, jurors are specifically instructed on burdens of proof and many other matters. Most Americans are perfectly aware that there exists a ...[text shortened]... otwithstanding, such results show the desirability of jury trial to accomplish its primary goal.
    "It's generally predictable on this Forum that some posters will stoop to low grade insults."
    --No1Marauder (to Zahlanzi)

    Is the hypocritical No1Marauder referring to his own flinging 'elitist' as an insult in this thread?
    (If No1Marauder prefers to lie and deny that he wrote it, do I need to cite quotations?)
  4. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    10 Jul '17 20:28
    Originally posted by sh76 to Zahlanzi
    It may be true in some cases that the issues are so technical that they should not be held as jury trials. Examples may include antitrust cases, SEC enforcement actions and some patent cases. Perhaps that's the case in 1% of trials (if that). I'm fine with not empanelling juries in a limited set of hypertechnical civil cases.

    Judges are empower t ...[text shortened]... , not to abandon it.

    I have seen no evidence that organized crime defendants go after jurors.
    "It may be true in some cases that the issues are so technical that they should not be held as jury trials.
    Examples may include antitrust cases, SEC enforcement actions and some patent cases."
    --Sh76

    A relative of mine often testified as an expert witness for the US government in
    federal criminal cases involving very technical financial malfeasance by corporations.
    Although he attempted to make his testimony as simple as practicable for the jury,
    he could sense that jurors tended to struggle to follow him. He also noted that corporate
    lawyers preferred to pick the least educated jurors, whom they could mislead most easily.
    He's convinced that most Americans are not qualified to adjudicate the merits of these cases.
  5. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    10 Jul '17 20:29
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Yes, the percentages mean something; it's common sense that an employee of the State (generally drawn from the most elitist and conservative element of the population) is more likely to convict those accused of crimes by another apparatus of the State than the People. This is reflected in results from numerous countries like Russia:

    Juries introduced ...[text shortened]... 11/16/world/europe/16jury.html?pagewanted=all

    Naturally the State isn't too happy about that.
    They have elections in Russia too, but still it's a dictatorship. I guess democracy doesn't work then.
  6. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    10 Jul '17 20:52
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    They have elections in Russia too, but still it's a dictatorship. I guess democracy doesn't work then.
    Are you claiming that conviction rates in other judge only trial systems are not similar?
  7. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    10 Jul '17 21:221 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Yes, the percentages mean something; it's common sense that an employee of the State (generally drawn from the most elitist and conservative element of the population) is more likely to convict those accused of crimes by another apparatus of the State than the People. This is reflected in results from numerous countries like Russia:

    Juries introduced ...[text shortened]... 11/16/world/europe/16jury.html?pagewanted=all

    Naturally the State isn't too happy about that.
    "This is reflected in results from numerous countries like Russia:"
    oh yeah, great example. it's obvious the russian penal system suffers because they have no juries.

    how about you use france as an example. or norway
  8. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    10 Jul '17 21:26
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Are you claiming that conviction rates in other judge only trial systems are not similar?
    Apparently in the Dutch system the figure is 10.3% acquittal in criminal cases including cases involving misdemeanors (i.e. all cases that are brought to court). Most of the convictions lead to a fine or community service.
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    10 Jul '17 22:34
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "This is reflected in results from numerous countries like Russia:"
    oh yeah, great example. it's obvious the russian penal system suffers because they have no juries.

    how about you use france as an example. or norway
    Both France (at least for major crimes) and Norway have a "mixed" system with a jury of both judges and laypeople, so direct comparison would be difficult.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#France
  10. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    11 Jul '17 08:081 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Both France (at least for major crimes) and Norway have a "mixed" system with a jury of both judges and laypeople, so direct comparison would be difficult.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#France
    felony. that's what juries are used for in France. felonies. plus a higher court that only has jurors on appeals. on cases of terrorism and drug trafficking they don't allow jurors.

    you just cling to any technicality, do you. does it invalidate my point in any way? did i not said, repeatedly , that YOUR jury system is stupid? that i am open to reform it not abolish it entirely ? or you just debate whatever suits your fancy?
Back to Top