The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Redskins gesture offensive. (6 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..7..11..15..19..22~23~24~25~26~27~28~29 [Next]
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
I'd probably reject them on voir dire.
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
762 Posts

Profile of rockwall
I've suspected for some time now that even after being given instructions from the court that many jurors still think it essentially means, "beyond a shadow of a doubt.", based on some recent verdicts.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Well the right to a jury of your peers only means that they must be fellow citizens, not that they be particularly intelligent. That is why we have voir dire. In some cases a smart jury is preferable. In others, not so much.

Personally, though it may seem undemocratic, I think there should be minimum intelligence and comprehension requirements for jurors. How to test that, though, opens up an entirely different can of worms.
slowkneenuh
View Profile
Regular user
After 5,278+ posts, only credited with
133 Posts

Profile of slowkneenuh
I would also like to remove peremptory challenges and make all challenges require a reason.
John

"A poor workman always blames his tools"
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
I could live with reducing, but not completely eliminating, peremptory challenges, given that unlimited challenges for cause are permitted. However, ALL eligible citizens should be required to serve. Juror compensation should be raised and fewer hardship exemptions granted. Employers should also be prohibited from discouraging or penalizing any person for jury service.
lunatik
View Profile
Inner circle
2901 Posts

Profile of lunatik
Quote:
On Aug 27, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
I'd like to see that stats on all these guilty people who are supposedly escaping. That said, is the solution just to imprison everyone your suspicious of?


I was just asking a question in regards to rockwells.
"Don't let your Dreams become Fantasies"
slowkneenuh
View Profile
Regular user
After 5,278+ posts, only credited with
133 Posts

Profile of slowkneenuh
Bob,

Now we are getting somewhere! I can live with your proposal. Now, on to the Constitution.....
John

"A poor workman always blames his tools"
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Aug 27, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
I'd probably reject them on voir dire.

I'm sure that I'd be rejected by any competent attorney in voir dire.

I was in a jury pool once that was brought into a courtroom for a civil trial: a man was suing a hospital because after his surgery he decided to get out of his bed in the recovery room, got woozy, and fell and bumped his head on the IV stand.

After each attorney finished his questions of each prospective juror, the judge asked his "$64,000 question": if you were the plaintiff in this case, would you want 12 people just like you on this jury, and if you were the defendant in this case, would you want 12 people just like you on this jury?" (That seems to be two questions to me, but he described is as one.)

My response would have been, "If I were the defendant in this case I'd like 12 people on the jury exactly like me, and if I were the plaintiff on this case I wouldn't want 12 people remotely like me."

Sadly, I didn't even get called into the jury box.

(I did find it interesting that the judge asked questions of the potential jurors: I wasn't theretofore aware that judges did that (or that they were even allowed to do that).)
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Aug 27, 2014, slowkneenuh wrote:
I would also like to remove peremptory challenges and make all challenges require a reason.

Why's that?
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
21005 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On Aug 27, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Well the right to a jury of your peers only means that they must be fellow citizens, not that they be particularly intelligent. That is why we have voir dire. In some cases a smart jury is preferable.


In any case you will be judged by 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
I don't agree that peremptory challenges should be completely prohibited. There are, after all, situations in which you just "know" that a particular juror is reacting poorly to the attorney, the client, the prosecutor, etc. but you can't exactly say why. (Of course, if he's running his finger across his throat while looking at the defendant from the jury box, that would be a clue. Without a peremptory dismissal, he could just say that he had an itch.)
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
21005 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
A disinterested juror can be the worst thing or best thing. Wild cards are not good.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On Aug 27, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 27, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Well the right to a jury of your peers only means that they must be fellow citizens, not that they be particularly intelligent. That is why we have voir dire. In some cases a smart jury is preferable.


In any case you will be judged by 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.


That's exactly why I favor raises in juror pay, penalties to employers who discourage employees from serving, fewer exemptions except for real hardship, etc.

If all you have in the jury pool are the unemployed and the retired, they are hardly representative of a community.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
DID YOU KNOW?

As recently as the mid 19th Century, in many jurisdictions a "jury of peers" was interpreted to mean people who KNEW the defendant, were familiar with his history, and, in many cases, actually knew the facts of the case.
The Hermit
View Profile
Veteran user
301 Posts

Profile of The Hermit
This is the most awesome magic thread ever. From racist team names to racist protesting and not, to innocent people executed, to our f'ed up legal system, to bad politicians, to jury selection. I have to jump in:

Why does one minority get to be the Native American. What point do we judge native? Supposedly they came over the Bering land bridge, so who's to decide 'native'. The Mississippi culture appears to come from South America. What is a Native Hawaiian? They came from other islands. I guess the native is who was there when the 'white' guy showed up.

Redskins won't change the name, it's the cause d'jour. What about the Vikings? No one cares that our proud pillaging ancestors are reduced to caricatures with plastic horns.

I lived in St Louis. It's a hot bed of racial animosity and crime. Most of the crime is black on black. They show that picture of Brown with the headphones and he looks like a kid. He was a 300 pound thug. Should he have been shot, who knows? If the cops wanted to shoot black people, there'd be a lot more dead than this one instance.

Congress - everybody hates Congress, but loves their Congressman. That's the problem.

Justice and the law are two different things. I have experience with the legal system. Most people convicted of crimes have been committing them for a long time before being caught. Hang around criminals and you'll understand why we need more of them in prison. We have more people in prison and crime rates are down. Who knew? I agree the drug offenses are disproportionate in minority communities, but so is crime in general. Most of the minority deaths are the result of gang activity. Who is responsible for that? The parents and citizens that allow their children to go that direction. As to death row? Most all of the people there are life long criminals. Have some innocent people been convicted? Sure. I think we should eliminate the death penalty only because of the expense involved.

If you've ever served on a jury, you will be aware that you really don't want to be judged by one. That being said, they usually get it right.

As to voir dire, would you rather use the the Microphone switch or the Moldavian?
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Aug 27, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
DID YOU KNOW?

As recently as the mid 19th Century, in many jurisdictions a "jury of peers" was interpreted to mean people who KNEW the defendant, were familiar with his history, and, in many cases, actually knew the facts of the case.

That would save a lot of time.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
21005 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Bob in many parts of the country that would have been hard to avoid.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
That's why is was that way, I suppose.
slowkneenuh
View Profile
Regular user
After 5,278+ posts, only credited with
133 Posts

Profile of slowkneenuh
And now we pause for today's newsbreak, hot off the press in New Hampshire...

"BRENTWOOD, N.H. —Defense lawyers for a woman accused of killing two bicyclists in a car crash are trying to get important evidence excluded.

Prosecutors said Darriean Hess was driving under the influence in Seabrook in September when she struck four bicyclists, killing two of them.
The defense is asking for blood that was drawn from Hess after the crash to be ruled inadmissible.

Prosecutors said the bloodwork proves that Hess was under the influence at the time of the crash, and they said they're confident a judge will allow the blood to be admitted as evidence in the trial.
Pamela Wells, 60, and Elise Bouchard, 52, were killed in the crash.

After the crash, Hess was taken to a hospital, where she had blood drawn. The defense is objecting to those results being introduced during the trial, but the prosecution believes it's an objection without any merit."

She's obviously guilty of killing two people while under the influence and her defense lawyer is trying to get evidence dismissed. What's wrong with this picture??? Don't give me the crap the evidence was illegally obtained. Even suppose it was. She is still guilty of committing the crime and should suffer the consequences.
John

"A poor workman always blames his tools"
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
21005 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Nobody disagrees with you in principal. Well let me correct that. I do not disagree with you in principal. Those who are guilty should have punishment. A punishment that seems fitting to the crime.

Now not getting into the weeds on the fitting punishment concept let me say this.

The legal protections that are in place exist for all of us. They are there to stop the state from over reaching. A trial is a process by which proof is weighed and a judgment passed. If we were to forego some of the protections we all enjoy it would leave open the opportunity, a very real one, for a tyrannical government to start enforcing the laws they wanted how they wanted. It would be a tyranny of the majority and devolve quite quickly.

Those legal protections are there for all of us. To keep us safe. Do not so quickly dismiss them.

As I said I agree in principal but live in reality. If I was to make wishes it would be so nobody felt the need for crime or war in the first place. Since we do not live in that world we must deal with the world how it is.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Redskins gesture offensive. (6 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..7..11..15..19..22~23~24~25~26~27~28~29 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.06 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL