On the other hand, the members of the jury are the only people in the courtroom who are not bought and sold to the highest bidder. Yah, there are some ignorant scrotes running around out there. But if it ever comes to it, I’ll take my chances with 12 of my peers.
Regarding the OJ criminal trial. There was another thread on another board here that the poster said that if he was on that jury he would have had to come to the same conclusion that they did. The reason was that the jury did not see everything that the television viewing public saw. I have to agree somewhat. The jury was stuck in the jury room a good portion of the time when the lawyers were arguing about everything, so they did not hear about ALL of the “Furman tapes”, etc. Only 2 of the slurs. And what they DID see was put to them in such a way that it did raise “reasonable doubts” in their minds.
I am not defending OJ because I think he is guilty as charged, but IF I had been on that jury, I probably would have had to come to the same conclusion as they did. A person can only come to a verdict based on what they are told. Simply, if they don’t hear everything, they can’t base their decision on everything.
Huh?
Meaning that they are appointed by democratically elected officials in a carefully supervised process, and given responsibilities according to their skills and experience. They’re not chosen at random.
Okay.
But they did hear the DNA evidence, and they chose to ignore it because they didn’t comprehend what DNA was or why it mattered or whatever.
Is that even allowed? Aren’t jurors obligated to take all of the evidence into account during their deliberations? And even if there are no actual rules that say they must, isn’t there a tacit agreement that they will?
Democratically Appointed? Huh? Some are elected (which means, here in MS, we get guys who have no legal training), some are appointed (like Federal Judges)
They aren’t always impartial (got a two time DUI offender on the bench here, no one with the balls to kick him off, he’s appointed, so we can’t elect some one else).
And I’m sure had I the time, I could look up plenty of arguements to shoot down the Forth statement you made.
The chances of OJ, what with all that publicity and all, of clearing the Civil case scot free was zip. He didn’t stand a chance, and everyone knew it. It was going to be backlash, punishment and get the bastard good. You couldn’t have found a jury that would be impartial in that case. Everyone had heard of the riots, and the implied threat was “stick it to him, or we’ll have more Rioting”
I don’t know why they ignored the DNA evidence. Maybe they bought into the “it was planted” theory. Not only are they obligated to take into account all the evidence, I believe that they are REQUIRED to. If they are not required to, they should have, at least, thought about it. But they didn’t. Who knows why, except them. I believe that, for the most part, they had their minds made up before they went to deliberate. But I also believe that there were a lot of unanswered questions that remained in their minds, which may or may not have had something to do with it.
The really unfortunate part of the whole matter is that the Prosecution could not appeal the verdict like the defense could.
Yes he lost in the civil trial. For what ever good that did. The families that sued will not ever get much, if anything at all, of the verdict because of the way OJ’s pension is set up. All he has to do is NEVER work. (Assuming he could GET a job).
Why do these always turn into an OJ dicussion?
Watch the movie: Mississippi Burning. (I think that’s the one with Samuel Jackson when he shoots the guy who beat up and raped his daughter. Sorry if this is the wrong movie 
)
That’ll show you a good idea about Jury selection.
Prosecusion wants people that will convict and the Defence wants vice/versa.
If that means midless boobs, then so be it.
IF nothing else, it’s a good movie.
…err… make that MINDless boobs.
::slinks away quietly::
In your dreams man. So how do you explain the OJ verdict? Or maybe you think OJ was really innocent? So why didn’t Judge Ito nullify that verdict? OJ’s verdict is the best proof that GOD doesn’t exist, unless he has future plans for OJ that we don’t know about. **
[/QUOTE]
We were talking about CIVIL trials. However, why are YOU so sure that OJ was guilty? Did you read the entire transcript of the trial? See ALL the televised trial? Or as is your wont, saw a little bit then relied on the media to make up your mind for you? Do you have ANY opinions of your own, or do you just parrot whichever media you’ve just been exposed to?
Besides, the DA must PROVE OJ guilty. If she does not (and she didn’t), then he is technically innocent.
Ya know, I kind of agree with this! People who vote for someone who says, “I will increase everyone’s benefits while decreasing everyone’s taxes,” shouldn’t be allowed to vote. I believe that the most efficient and desirable form of government would be by a benevolent dictator. The problem is how do you make sure he’s benevolent. So I’ll take democracy for now, but IQ tests at the polls wouldn’t offend me.
As for juries having to take into account all the evidence - no such luck. Sure, juries receive instructions from the judge, and they’re supposed to be fair and equitable, consider all the evidence, weigh credibility, and eschew all extraneous information. However, our juries function inside a “black box.” No inquiry is to be made into the process of arriving at a verdict, unless there are credible reports of jury tampering or serious violations of sequestering or some such. Aside from that, the jurors can say, “gee, the defendant looked so clean-cut in his suit, and that witness was wearing white shoes after labor day, and my brother-in-law works in a DNA lab and he says . . .” and they come out with a verdict in no way based on legal theory. They can also ignore the law, although they’re not allowed to be told about it by, say, the defense attorney. Essentially, the OJ jury could have said, “Well, he obviously did it, but he was just so darn funny in those Naked Gun movies, let’s give him a break.” That would be it - he’s free.
What a bunch of elitist bullshit. Daniel, great post(s).
Borowing a really stupid argument from the right wing. If you don’t like our jury system why don’t you go to another country where they don’t have one. Move to fucking england if you don’t like it. What, you don’t like your neighbor voting, move to Pakistan. People can’t currently vote there. I’m sure you will enjoy it much more.
Buncha cracker morons.
Danielinthewolvesden (to Major Feelgud):
Actually Daniel’, YOU were talking about civil trials and grand juries (I presume from your “most jurors are pretty smart” remark); the rest of us were talking about criminal trials and the jury selection process.
Not that I want to defend Major Feelgud (being myself a liberal and a recalcitrant bastard), but it would certainly be refreshing to see you climb off your moral high horse and allow the rest of us to express opinions about well-publicized criminal matters. —And BTW, since the OJ trial was the most public trial EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE FUCKIN’ WORLD, maybe it’s reasonable that those of us who followed it might have enough information on which to base an opinion, hmmm?
While I agree the DA did a piss-poor job of prosecuting that murderous piece of shit, I think anybody who believes the OJ jury adequately performed their civic duty is a dimwit.
I would gather by this post, oldscratch, that you are completely content with the way the jury system / voting / whatever else works in our country? Just asking…
As for my own cynical view (as well as some gross generalization), juries are chosen by lawyers, and lawyers, by and large, have only their own self-interests at heart - that is, who can they pick who will best allow them to win the case? Jurors are not chosen based on their impartiality and ability to reason things out based upon the evidence presented, but on how easy it might be to manipulate them. The more educated, opinionated, or intelligent the individual comes across during selection, the more likely he or she is to be dismissed. Why? Because such people are more likely to see through the smoke-screen that the lawyers are going to be blowing during the trial. People who don’t understand something are more likely to accept the word of the ‘expert witnesses’, which of course are there to bolster one side or the other, not provide unbiased information.
The bottom line is that lawyers are trying to sell something (and it ain’t necessarily justice…), and they want the jurors to buy it.
No I’m not content. But, throwing the baby out with the bathwater has always seemed somewhat stupid to me.
I quite agree, but, personally, I don’t see comments such as “If you don’t like it, why don’t you just leave the country?!” as being terribly helpful, either.
But then, this isn’t posted in the Great Debates forum, so I guess arguments here are expected to be somewhat extreme, eh?
If someone wants to fucking de-fucking-bate the jury system they can post in the Great Debates. If they have nothing intelligent to say they can post here. The arguments posted by the clearly inbred Sweet-Lotus are typicall of both liberal and conservative claptrap. Instead of focusing on real problems of society they like to blame little things like the jury system, or hip-hop. The problem with them is that they are too stupid to see whats really wrong with america.
What is really wrong with America, oldscratch?