A Political Thread pt. 2

[Amiga500]

Cut the feed or restrained? Wtf?? How about just let the victims families at them for 5 mins?

That's soon put their silencer on them.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Anyone been called up for jury service before?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Trump bail set at $200,000 in Georgia election case

Donald Trump can remain free pending trial as long as he doesn't threaten witnesses, a court filing says.

www.bbc.co.uk

Knowing Trump, he will be completely incapable of following the conditions of his bail. I seriously hope the judge will be prepared to jail him pending trial if that happens. The law must matter.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Trump’s legal woes are part of his quasi-religious mythology of martyrdom | Sidney Blumenthal

These criminal entanglements are not only means but ends – not a sideshow, but the heart and soul of Trump’s campaign

www.theguardian.com

 

[Welsh Exile]

When you think about it the jury system is a terrible idea.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

When you think about it the jury system is a terrible idea.

Why?

 

[Welsh Exile]

Why?

Because people are stupid and incredibly biased and are generally not truth seekers. Sub consciously jurors will decide whether someone is guilty within 5 seconds of looking at someone. Bit like that old thing that people say about job interviews, you can revise all this stuff about the job to say in your interview but chances are the person doing the interview has made up their mind about you after speaking with you for 10 seconds and shaking your hand.

Then you have the problem that a lot of cases will require expert knowledge on certain things but because you've got Dave and Tracy from down the road who can barely tie their shoe laces you've got to spend a lot of time explaining the evidence that they don't really understand but it's moot anyway as people will fall back on how the accused makes them feel. They of course will say it because of X and Y evidence but it won't really.

Put it this way, say you were on the hook for a murder you didn't do would you want 12 randoms deciding your fate? I wouldn't and I tell you what, if I was black my fear would be 100 times worse and more real.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Because people are stupid and incredibly biased and are generally not truth seekers. Sub consciously jurors will decide whether someone is guilty within 5 seconds of looking at someone. Bit like that old thing that people say about job interviews, you can revise all this stuff about the job to say in your interview but chances are the person doing the interview has made up their mind about you after speaking with you for 10 seconds and shaking your hand.

Then you have the problem that a lot of cases will require expert knowledge on certain things but because you've got Dave and Tracy from down the road who can barely tie their shoe laces you've got to spend a lot of time explaining the evidence that they don't really understand but it's moot anyway as people will fall back on how the accused makes them feel. They of course will say it because of X and Y evidence but it won't really.

Put it this way, say you were on the hook for a murder you didn't do would you want 12 randoms deciding your fate? I wouldn't and I tell you what, if I was black my fear would be 100 times worse and more real.

But isn't that the point of jury system that they have to be lay people and selected to be the "reasonable" person on the street to judge the accused based on the evidence presented. They might not always reach this standard as seen by a recent case which had to be abandoned.

No system is perfect and the other alternative is having your fate decided by 3 old farts who are likely to Caucasian and no idea of what life is like outside their legal bubble.

 

[Welsh Exile]

But isn't that the point of jury system that they have to be lay people and selected to be the "reasonable" person on the street to judge the accused based on the evidence presented. They might not always reach this standard as seen by a recent case which had to be abandoned.

No system is perfect and the other alternative is having your fate decided by 3 old farts who are likely to Caucasian and no idea of what life is like outside their legal bubble.

Yeah that is exactly the point and I think it's an incredibly flawed, stupid system. For sure no system will be perfect but as I say I'd rather have a panel of experts that have been trained specifically for that job than a bunch of stupid, biased randoms that don't even evaluate evidence properly.

 

[General Melchett]

No system is perfect and the other alternative is having your fate decided by 3 old farts who are likely to Caucasian and no idea of what life is like outside their legal bubble.

What's Farrell's appeal hearing got to do with it?

 

[Which Tyler]

I honestly think one way or another we will be go back into EU. Polls say most want it and the younger generations seem more open minded and are not stuck in the traditional brit mindset like previous gens.

Gods I hope so!

Cut the feed or restrained? Wtf?? How about just let the victims families at them for 5 mins?

That's soon put their silencer on them.

Vengeance =/= justice
And back to Ncurd's point about 10% being wrongfully convicted.

 

[ncurd]

No system is perfect and the other alternative is having your fate decided by 3 old farts who are likely to Caucasian and no idea of what life is like outside their legal bubble.

Yeah that is exactly the point and I think it's an incredibly flawed, stupid system. For sure no system will be perfect but as I say I'd rather have a panel of experts that have been trained specifically for that job than a bunch of stupid, biased randoms that don't even evaluate evidence properly.

As always I'd defer to The Secret Barristers book Stories of the Law and How It's Broken and getting examples of issues around not having juries. The best example is the magistrates system we have in this country and how much more flawed it is. You just have to think what kind of person is attracted to that kind of role and you begin to realise how much more flawed it is. 12 random people of the street is far more likely to yield a group of people from all walks of life who are far more likely to understand and emphasise with the victim and accused.

Of course its massively flawed any system is. The only person I know to serve on a jury was my mother in law and you definitely don't want her if you're accused of a crime you didn't commit. Apparently her words were "you can tell just by the look of him he done it" or something a long those lines it was supposedly a very open and shut case but still, great well done on hearing the evidence.

Still I'd rather chance my arm with a group of random's to weigh in on the evidence given in a majority progressive society. Than a group of 'professionals' who have decided its their calling.

 

[Welsh Exile]

As always I'd defer to The Secret Barristers book Stories of the Law and How It's Broken and getting examples of issues around not having juries. The best example is the magistrates system we have in this country and how much more flawed it is. You just have to think what kind of person is attracted to that kind of role and you begin to realise how much more flawed it is. 12 random people of the street is far more likely to yield a group of people from all walks of life who are far more likely to understand and emphasise with the victim and accused.

Of course its massively flawed any system is. The only person I know to serve on a jury was my mother in law and you definitely don't want her if you're accused of a crime you didn't commit. Apparently her words were "you can tell just by the look of him he done it" or something a long those lines it was supposedly a very open and shut case but still, great well done on hearing the evidence.

Still I'd rather chance my arm with a group of random's to weigh in on the evidence given in a majority progressive society. Than a group of 'professionals' who have decided its their calling.

Even though it's a fact jurors make decisions in seconds without evaluating evidence? This isn't even a generally speaking kind of point. It's a human trait. It can be trained out of you, though. CIA and MI6 put a lot of work into training analysts out of their confirmation bias.

It doesn't nexcsiarily have to be their job you could start by having a system whereby you call up specialists in that field relating to a certain case so if it's a complex IT fraud case of something to call up some experts in that field. I'd probably lean towards having specialised law professionals as they're not going to send someone down based on how he looks.

I hear what you're saying though and it's one of the biggest problems the police has in that it attracts certain types of people but I think there's other things you could do that would prevent loads of nutters going for the job.

 

[SG59_]

Because people are stupid and incredibly biased and are generally not truth seekers. Sub consciously jurors will decide whether someone is guilty within 5 seconds of looking at someone. Bit like that old thing that people say about job interviews, you can revise all this stuff about the job to say in your interview but chances are the person doing the interview has made up their mind about you after speaking with you for 10 seconds and shaking your hand.

Then you have the problem that a lot of cases will require expert knowledge on certain things but because you've got Dave and Tracy from down the road who can barely tie their shoe laces you've got to spend a lot of time explaining the evidence that they don't really understand but it's moot anyway as people will fall back on how the accused makes them feel. They of course will say it because of X and Y evidence but it won't really.

Put it this way, say you were on the hook for a murder you didn't do would you want 12 randoms deciding your fate? I wouldn't and I tell you what, if I was black my fear would be 100 times worse and more real.

I agree, but I'm not sure what the alternative is. You could put people that only have a certain level of education on the jury, but I've met plenty of people in that spectrum who can do some amazing things, but still can't tie their shoelaces - including barristers.

From experience, people that reach high levels of education are very good in the one thing they studied but woeful at everything else.

 

[Welsh Exile]

I agree, but I'm not sure what the alternative is. You could put people that only have a certain level of education on the jury, but I've met plenty of people in that spectrum who can do some amazing things, but still can't tie their shoelaces - including barristers.

From experience, people that reach high levels of education are very good in the one thing they studied but woeful at everything else.

Yeah I don't have all the answers obviously but I would say there doesn't have to necessarily be a education threshold. But no doubt there has to be an extensive program you'd have to go through similar to that if you wanted to work in high end analytical jobs in the intelligence services. I think the CIA and such are more concerned with how you think and analyse compared to what level of education you have but there could be some correlation between these 2 things, I'm not sure.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Defense attorneys prefer jury trials over bench trials 9/10 times. Juries are random which increases the chance their client gets let off.

 

[SG59_]

Maybe this is just another field AI could help in eventually

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Defense attorneys prefer jury trials over bench trials 9/10 times. Juries are random which increases the chance their client gets let off.

What's with the grand jury system? Will they be the same jury as the ones who decide the actual case or do they pick fresh people?

 

[ncurd]

What's with the grand jury system? Will they be the same jury as the ones who decide the actual case or do they pick fresh people?

Fresh people.

The Grand Jury is a waste of time, they just decide if there is a case to answer. The attorneys office should be able to determine that and be sacked if they are **** at it.

Although I guess its what happens when you politicise judicial appointments (both judges and attorneys).

 

[Bada-Bing!]

As always I'd defer to The Secret Barristers book Stories of the Law and How It's Broken and getting examples of issues around not having juries. The best example is the magistrates system we have in this country and how much more flawed it is. You just have to think what kind of person is attracted to that kind of role and you begin to realise how much more flawed it is.

yep, Magistrates tend to be lay people as well. The one that tried and let off Sir Iain Mckellan's agent for basically driving into Cycling Mikey was a classic case of HTF did you get to that decision.

12 random people of the street is far more likely to yield a group of people from all walks of life who are far more likely to understand and emphasise with the victim and accused.

Of course it's massively flawed any system is. The only person I know to serve on a jury was my mother in law and you definitely don't want her if you're accused of a crime you didn't commit. Apparently her words were "you can tell just by the look of him he done it" or something a long those lines it was supposedly a very open and shut case but still, great well done on hearing the evidence.

lol.

Yeh the only relation I know is my mum who got picked and she got out of it by saying her English wasn't good enough. Basically she didn't want to do it. And a lady at work who couldn't use being busy at work to get out of it but did attend but they are under strictest instructions not to talk about the cases.
Never been picked myself although don't know if having a law degree means they won't even though I did not end up going into the legal profession.

Still I'd rather chance my arm with a group of random's to weigh in on the evidence given in a majority progressive society. Than a group of 'professionals' who have decided its their calling.

.