|
VikingofRock posted:Could you expand on this? I get criticisms about the specific way we do trial by jury (juror pay, juror selection, etc), but I've never seen someone say that trial by jury itself is bad before. Its my opinion, one that fishmech strongly disagrees with, that pulling randoms who've passed the rigorous exam of 'voted/have a license/paid taxes' is not a good way of delivering justice as 99.99% of those called have no idea how the legal or court systems work or even what reasonable doubt is. My preferred fix is abolishing elected judgeships and replacing it with trial by tribunal.
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 13:58 |
|
|
What does trial by tribunal mean.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Not exactly. Scalia's bit in the concurrence in Hererra v. Collins (which is what I think you're referencing) about work of lower courts was written because he thought the way the majority reached its decision would leave lower courts obliged to consider arguments that he didn't think they should have to. Thanks  I understand a bit better now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Three judges hear the trial and rule on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Three judges hear the trial and rule on it. So tripling the expense of judges and time needed to try criminal cases . Does not seems practical.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
Juries aren't totally randos either. Getting chosen for jury duty pretty much is random. However the defense and prosecution select the actual jury.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
euphronius posted:So tripling the expense of judges and time needed to try criminal cases . Does not seems practical. How would it triple the time? DemeaninDemon posted:Juries aren't totally randos either. Getting chosen for jury duty pretty much is random. However the defense and prosecution select the actual jury. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't people that admit having some training in the legal system get excused by the legal teams like 9/10 of the time?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:How would it triple the time? 3 judges handing one case instead of 3 judges handling 3 cases.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Check it -- Bernie's campaign is saying they have reached one million individual online donations, which would make Sanders the first 2016 candidate to do so -- and he did it faster than Obama did it in both 2008 and 2012.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
I'm not sure. Probably depends on the lawyers picking. All my knowledge is from the lady who is a prosecutor for a rural county. She usually only gets mad at them for stuff beyond her control like getting a gun conviction here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:How would it triple the time? Depends. They sometimes won't burn a peremptory challenge on you for it if there's someone else they'd prefer to get rid of. So basically it can come down to if your legal knowledge has anything to do with the case (strike for cause) or not (stay) and how lenient the judge is on that issue. Some jurisdictions do exclude lawyers by statute, though. That's not necessarily a bad thing - juries don't decide legal questions, so legal knowledge on the part of the jury is a good way to have a jury ignore the judge's instructions as to the law. I sat on a jury relatively recently (I'm a lawyer, but not criminal, and it was a criminal case) and every time I spoke up I thought about it to make sure nothing I was saying had any kind of legal judgment behind it because that wasn't my role and I didn't want to taint the jury's decision.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
euphronius posted:3 judges handing one case instead of 3 judges handling 3 cases. Ah, I took your tripling of expenses as there being a tripling of hired judges.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Three judges hear the trial and rule on it. What if the town in Road House had all the judges lining Brad Wesley's pockets at the end of his rampage? I imagine they'd be pretty upset.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
euphronius posted:What does trial by tribunal mean. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD_troika 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Ah, I took your tripling of expenses as there being a tripling of hired judges. I guess i should have said tripling expense OR time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Juries aren't totally randos either. Getting chosen for jury duty pretty much is random. However the defense and prosecution select the actual jury. Yes, and they specifically want to exclude educated people because they're less suggestible and can see through the lawyers' tricks more easily. My friend says he's been called for jury duty something like 10 times, and always excluded, in his opinion, on the basis that he's an engineer (one time getting held in contempt one time for asking a question about the facts of the case in front of the other jurors during voir dire, if his stories are to be believed).
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
No he got excluded because he's an engineer who thinks he knows everything about everything. Edit: really getting excluded isn't hard. Just be someone who won't sit there and pay attention. Helps if you're a douche about it. Islam is the Lite Rock FM fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Oct 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
More educated people aren't any less suggestible than less educated people, no matter what they think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yes, and they specifically want to exclude educated people because they're less suggestible and can see through the lawyers' tricks more easily. This is also why doctors never fall for money making schemes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Is that "friend" of yours 60 or something? They usually exclude you from duty for the next 4-6 years once you've been called. Took them 5 years to even bother calling me here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
Yeah, I read a long time ago that the best that being educated about persuasion techniques can do is allow you to recognize their effects on you. If you think you can stop them, that false certainty makes you even more vulnerable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:Check it -- Bernie's campaign is saying they have reached one million individual online donations, which would make Sanders the first 2016 candidate to do so -- and he did it faster than Obama did it in both 2008 and 2012. Cool! That's pretty impressive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
The Larch posted:More educated people aren't any less suggestible than less educated people, no matter what they think. Yeah, I guess you're right. Seems to be reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Is that "friend" of yours 60 or something? They usually exclude you from duty for the next 4-6 years once you've been called. Took them 5 years to even bother calling me here. I've gotten called 3 times in 4 years or something like that. I'm also a college student so I'm exempt anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I've gotten called 3 times in 4 years or something like that. I'm also a college student so I'm exempt anyway. If you didn't actually come in, then it's no surprise they checked you a year later. But someone actually turning up is different. If you even just make yourself available for the days they tell you, but they end up not needing you to come in, you still get 6 years off, at least here in Upstate New York.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Look at this weak hearted sniveling about the death penalty.  Allow me to present a rebuttal The Ruling Class, starring Peter O'Toole, 1976. Whole thing is on YouTube and worth a watch
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Look at this weak hearted sniveling about the death penalty. Why has this not become a phenomenon like Rocky Horror Picture Show?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Why has this not become a phenomenon like Rocky Horror Picture Show? Couldn't tell you, it's hilarious, starts with an auto erotic asphyxiation gone wrong and gets funnier from there. It is begging for a remake except no one could match O'Toole
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:If you didn't actually come in, then it's no surprise they checked you a year later. But someone actually turning up is different. If you even just make yourself available for the days they tell you, but they end up not needing you to come in, you still get 6 years off, at least here in Upstate New York. It depends on the state and location. I believe they are allowed to call you as often as once a year in (parts of?) California.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
I'm holding off on a larger news roundup since I need to have stuff for next month's OP, but some weather models are predicting that Hurricane Joaquin, which has strengthened dramatically in the past 12 hours, may hit North Carolina in the vicinity of Camp Lejeune and New Bern as a Cat 5 or strong Cat 4 on Sunday, so you might wanna brace yourselves for the inevitable comparisons that call it Obama's Katrina. Of course the cone is wide at this point so it could hit anywhere between the South Carolina border and Rhode Island. Both posters on the Eastern Seaboard and armchair political analysts should be keeping tabs on the storm. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Oct 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
PT6A posted:(one time getting held in contempt one time for asking a question about the facts of the case in front of the other jurors during voir dire, if his stories are to be believed). Yeah I can't imagine why the judge would hold someone in contempt of court for asking about the facts of the case (which jurors aren't allowed to do ever, including during deliberations.) Your friend isn't getting excluded because he's an engineer or too smart - he's getting excluded because no one trusts him to actually follow the legal instructions he's given. (Like shutting the gently caress up during voir dire.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Your friend isn't getting excluded because he's an engineer or too smart - he's getting excluded because no one trusts him to actually follow the legal instructions he's given. (Like shutting the gently caress up during voir dire.) Probably true, he's a bit short on common sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Probably true, he's a bit short on common sense. Yeah that's the most likely explanation. They probably asked him a question and he just babbled his way into saying something that led them to strike him. My coworker gets selected every five years on the dot despite having his JD, having past litigation experience, and currently being employed by the federal government. My neighbor got selected recently and had to sit for a child molestation case even though he is a Professional Engineer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:I'm holding off on a larger news roundup since I need to have stuff for next month's OP, but some weather models are predicting that Hurricane Joaquin, which has strengthened dramatically in the past 12 hours, may hit North Carolina in the vicinity of Camp Lejeune and New Bern as a Cat 5 or strong Cat 4 on Sunday, so you might wanna brace yourselves for the inevitable comparisons that call it Obama's Katrina. CNN asks, "Does this hurt Trump's presidential hopes?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:Check it -- Bernie's campaign is saying they have reached one million individual online donations, which would make Sanders the first 2016 candidate to do so -- and he did it faster than Obama did it in both 2008 and 2012. For a total of $24 million. He isn't very good at this whole "socialism" thing is he?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
Hey Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), what is your thought on funding Planned Parenthood?Sen Portman posted:"I think it’s worth continuing to fight to defund. Taxpayer dollars should not be going to Planned Parenthood, I think our legislation makes a lot of sense. It says, not only do you not send taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood, but those tax dollars instead go to community health centers — there are a lot more of them than Planned Parenthood clinics; eight times more in the state of Ohio for instance — and they can provide the women’s health needs that are legitimate, that are needed. Follow up question: What is the one word you dipshits need to never use when discussing abortions?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
Delicious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Guys, Russia is starting WWIII  
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
zoux posted:Delicious. I was going to go with "legitimate" but I like this answer, it's better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 13:58 |
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Follow up question: What is the one word you dipshits need to never use when discussing abortions? gamergate?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2015 05:15
|
|
