@Finn dAbuzz,
You have no problem, because you're a mentally sick man. There are too many innocent men convicted of murder. Jurors are made up of men and women, and they arrive at the wrong decision too often to rely on their judgement.
Quote:
NEW STUDY SHOWS HOW OFTEN JURIES GET IT WRONG
June 26, 2007 | by Pat Vaughan Tremmel
EVANSTON, Ill. --- Juries across the country make decisions every day on the fate of defendants, ideally leading to prison sentences that fit the crime for the guilty and release for the innocent. Yet a new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases many times are getting it wrong.
In a set of 271 cases from four areas, juries gave wrong verdicts in at least one out of eight cases, according to “Estimating the Accuracy of Jury Verdicts,” a paper by a Northwestern University statistician that is being published in the July issue of Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.
@cicerone imposter,
These rules are similar to what we have in California. I served on a jury in Santa Clara County on a rape-murder case. I was the jury foreman on both the verdict and penalty phase.
http://theconversation.com/all-about-juries-why-do-we-actually-need-them-and-can-they-get-it-wrong-112703 Our jury only had circumstantial evidence; not eye witness to the rape and murder, but the evidence presented were overwhelming to the case. The man is now serving "life in prison without the possibility of parole." It was the second longest trial in our county up to that time, three months. I don't remember if the death penalty was a choice at that time, but it doesn't matter, because I would never have agreed to it.
@Finn dAbuzz,
But you agree with dead sentences
@cicerone imposter,
You don t agree with it because of a possibile mistake ?
@maxdog,
No. I don't agree with taking a life, who took a life. Two killings doesn't equate to ethical justice.
@cicerone imposter,
I don t like it either but this world is going nuts in many ways because the softness of discipline
@maxdog,
No, because "death sentences" can only come from the government.
I don't find anything immoral about a murderer losing his or her life for their crime, but we are a nation of laws and only the government can determine the punishment for crimes. I don't want the government to be able to decide on killing anyone, for any reason.
@cicerone imposter,
And you are a pathetic dolt who ejaculates replies from partisan spawned emotion rather than reason.
I have no problem with an actual, undeniable murder losing his or her life for their crime. This has nothing to do with the vagaries of the justice system you old fool.
Regardless of whether or not the justice system makes mistakes, if we don't allow the government to kill us, problem solved. Or is that too difficult for you to understand?
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:Two killings doesn't equate to ethical justice.
Unless you're a bible thumper.
At any rate, humans are not the best judgers, so, best to send the person they decided guilty up the river to the slammer.
I refuse to serve on any jury, it goes against my conscience. Even a smoking gun or video confession doesn't give me the right to judge another.
@cicerone imposter,
Fine. I disagree. That makes me "mentally sick?"
@Sturgis,
That really is nonsense Sturgis
I'm by no means a "bible thumper" (whatever the hell that means) and I don't have one whit of a problem with someone who has taken everything a person has been and will be from having the same done to them. You take a life and you forfeit your own.
You don't have to agree but trying to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is a religious fundamentalist is below youl
There are several problems with the justice system. At least in the U.S., I can't say about other countries.
It has been shown time and again that the prosecution often does not hand over all the files in their possession. Some they hide. How can a trial be considered fair in these situations? It cannot.
In the U.S. Appeals are automatically entered for anyone who is given the death penalty. Appeals can go on for years. Tennessee just executed a man who was convicted some 30 years ago.
With the appeals there are often new trials, more than if a person is sentenced to life without parole.
New trials often mean a crime victims friends and family are forced to sit through viewing another trial. The friends and relatives this become victims as well.
The death penalty is also much more expensive. Appeals, New trials, a separate prison area, etc. etc.
That said, I feel.there should also be automatic appeals for those serving life. for them, only new evidence, as approved by a court, or DNA can help them.
@Finn dAbuzz,
I suppose it would have helped it I'd included one of those emoji things to indicate that I was not being serious there.
@Sturgis,
Quote:At any rate, humans are not the best judgers, so, best to send the person they decided guilty up the river to the slammer.
I agree with this by about 100%.
@Sturgis,
Prosecutorial abuse is a much greater problem than most Americans believe.
Kamala Harris is a perfect example of someone who used the position more for political advantage than in the pursuit of justice. The problem, of course, is not limited to progressive prosecutors.
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Quote:At any rate, humans are not the best judgers, so, best to send the person they decided guilty up the river to the slammer.
I agree with this by about 100%.
I'm sure Sturgis will be happy he passed your test on mental sickness.
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:I'm sure Sturgis will be happy he passed your test on mental sickness.
It's not about "mental sickness."
@cicerone imposter,
It's not? You were the one who first brought it up.
@Finn dAbuzz,
Okay, I stand by my opinion.
