Ontopic So did Georgia murder an innocent man last night?

We could motivate the jurors to work harder by allowing the judge to whip them. That would be inhumane -- we'll just threaten jurors with the fear of imprisonment.
 
Casper said:
It's no wonder we get fucked up jury decisions. The role of the jury is to weigh evidence and determine credibility of witnesses. That sounds like a task I want to charge to people who aren't experts that are selected on inability to come up with clever ways to avoid jury duty. Who better to do that than the unemployed and the elderly?

On top of that we pay these people next to nothing and make it mandatory. Nobody works harder than slaves.
Click to expand...
:D pretty much.
 
Syrup Beaver said:
Ammo ain't cheap, or easy to find :fly:

20 years ago? No idea, but I don't think they were all that common then either.
Click to expand...
I think my local Wal-Mart has .380ACP. Walther PPKs are pretty popular around here. Of course those are .355 in diameter and significantly lighter than 9mm or .38SPC.
 
Casper said:
Bailey v. Alabama opinion disagrees with this. Guarantee a trial by jury? I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is penalty for not performing on a jury being punishable with imprisonment. There is no other way to look at this. That is forced labor. Jurors are not convicted of crimes. They should give up no rights.
Click to expand...
BAILEY v. STATE OF ALABAMA, 211 U.S. 452 (1908) This one? The reason for the 13th amendment in that was "it is said practically to make a crime out of a mere departure from service." That is, one couldn't be held criminally liable (in the sense of fraud) for taking money for work not already performed. I don't know which libertarian website you pulled it off but they were skipping on reasoning.

Right to trial by jury is important. The courts must be able to provide a speedy trial by jury, and in recognition of that they are granted powers by congress to make it possible. They are also granted a whole host of other powers as well but beside the point. If they weren't they wouldn't be able to carry out their constitutional duty.

It's the same reason the IRS has the power to collect income tax by any means necessary including seizing your assets, they have a specific grant of power by congress to collect taxes because congress has a grant of power to levy taxes.

They could up the amount of money they pay to juries, to make it more attractive, but it would cost more and no one wants to pay taxes. You could radically change how trials are carried out, like in equity court by panels of judges, but no one wants to pay for more judges.

Not arguing it's the best system, it is just the least worst way. The BEST way to avoid all this trouble is don't get arrested, and have a good reason for not serving on a jury. Anyone who has ever been affiliated with the legal system (including volunteers) are usually the first excused from jury duty HINT HINT.
 
ZRH said:
BAILEY v. STATE OF ALABAMA, 211 U.S. 452 (1908) This one? The reason for the 13th amendment in that was "it is said practically to make a crime out of a mere departure from service." That is, one couldn't be held criminally liable (in the sense of fraud) for taking money for work not already performed. I don't know which libertarian website you pulled it off but they were skipping on reasoning.

Right to trial by jury is important. The courts must be able to provide a speedy trial by jury, and in recognition of that they are granted powers by congress to make it possible. They are also granted a whole host of other powers as well but beside the point. If they weren't they wouldn't be able to carry out their constitutional duty.

It's the same reason the IRS has the power to collect income tax by any means necessary including seizing your assets, they have a specific grant of power by congress to collect taxes because congress has a grant of power to levy taxes.

They could up the amount of money they pay to juries, to make it more attractive, but it would cost more and no one wants to pay taxes. You could radically change how trials are carried out, like in equity court by panels of judges, but no one wants to pay for more judges.

Not arguing it's the best system, it is just the least worst way. The BEST way to avoid all this trouble is don't get arrested, and have a good reason for not serving on a jury. Anyone who has ever been affiliated with the legal system (including volunteers) are usually the first excused from jury duty HINT HINT.
Click to expand...

In Bailey v Alabama the opinion stated that indentured servitude is prohibited by the 13th Amendment. That's the logical step necessary to make the ruling on the case.

Okay. Any move away from minimum wage paid jurors would have little long term effects on cost. Compensation of market wages or volunteering means that in equilibrium attorney's fees will go down:

Costs of court proceedings rise and less trials take place. The demand for trial lawyers falls. Since lawyers are generally good substitutes for each other, this causes fees for all trial lawyers to fall commensurate with the fall in demand. That is not in their interest. So like I said, consider whose advice you take.

Lawyers make the law. It's my belief they have exempted themselves from jury duty because they simply don't want to do it. :fly:
 
I could easily get around that by saying jury summons aren't law and that answering them isn't service, it's a compulsion to appear. If you don't appear, you will be held in contempt, which also isn't a law, it's a summary judgement. Then if you strip the court of that power it wouldn't be able to issue subpoenas, injuctions, warrants, and become completely voluntary which obviously would never fly. :fly:

I do have a huge problem with increasing court fees though. They are already INSANE, and it's not like you always get to pick when you go to court. It's not just lala lets go to court cause it's FUN! Sometimes you really actually don't have a choice. It costs around $800 to file a case in supreme court in NY, each motion is charged BY THE PAGE. If it's a civil trial, juries already do cost extra, think $1200 extra. If you use a lawyer, it's even more expensive.

There aren't _that_ many trial lawyers in the real world, or at least that's not where the money is. Most legal fees are for shit that happens outside the courtroom, like research and charging you for each sheet of paper that they use.
 
Oh I totally forgot. You aren't exempt from jury duty by being affiliated with the court, it's just you'll never get picked. No one wants a lawyer/cop etc. on their jury, THEY MIGHT KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THE LAW :eek:
 
shamwow said:
do you not agree there are doubts that have been cast upon the evidence in this case? I'm debating above the belt but you and duke have gone for the "oh, he works for cnn" bullshit to bolster an argument, as if that means anything here. I don't work for the news and in that regard that makes none of us 3 any different. lame tactics.
Click to expand...

you misunderstand, i think the media (ie: cnn, fox, etc.) is what made this into an issue and is trying to make it into a "racewar". I don't think there is any reasonable doubt when you look at the original case, and i don't think anything he has come up with has created reasonable doubt since then, the courts obviously agree. can't decide a case by looking at a high level 3 sentence summary.
 
I find it hilarious no one who wanted him to live even looked at the evidence I posted. which was from the original trial. 34 witness NOT 9 total of which 7 after 22 years recanted. mind you the cop he shot was in a burger king parking lot in full view of alot of people and he was beating up a bum at the time which is why the cop intervened in the FIRST place. Soo busy "wailing about the plight of the lost of an endangered animal that people forget the animal killed any human it could come across" type shit is soo damn sad.
 
I read 7 out of 9 recanted online while reading up on this. do you think I would just pull that out of thin air? I also see it says there were 34 witnesses elsewhere since you came in here to be a passive aggressive douche.
 
shamwow said:
I read 7 out of 9 recanted online while reading up on this. do you think I would just pull that out of thin air? I also see it says there were 34 witnesses elsewhere since you came in here to be a passive aggressive douche.
Click to expand...

Shirley. No one was talking to you about this. You are the one who is the ball lickers! :fly:


Now I'm talking to you:
I posted my evidence. Which included transcripts from said trial.
Yours was apparently misbegotten hearsay not collaborated by actual fact or people checking said facts.

Know your role Jabroni.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back