I just saw a clip of this twit (paraphrased): “I have no idea how anyone could kill another person. How could someone kill someone? I just can’t fathom it. I just don’t know how or why someone could kill someone. I just don’t get it. How could someone kill someone?” etc, etc, ad nauseum.
Guess what? You just did it you stupid dipshit.
That’s all. I don’t really give a shit about this case and I’m not a huge death penalty opponent (though I sure don’t like it…this isn’t an anti-death penalty rant. Just a “this guy sounded like a fucking dumbass” rant.)
He just went through a six month long traumatic experience that ended up with having to decide that a man must die. Cut him a fucking break, you jackass.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
Well that doesn’t seem to fit what the jurors did at all no does it? You should Start reading the monthly Word Power section in Reader’s Digest. If can help improve vocabulary even in some people with deficits as strong as yours. Keep with and don’t get discouraged. It can take years to learn the meanings of even the most common words.
A link would help, so I’m not sure we’re talking about the same dialogue… Anyway, I think I heard the same interview and in fact the juror answered exactly the way he should have. The reporter asked why he thought Scott killed his wife-- it was a trick question to try to catch one of the jurors saying something they shouldn’t have said. Something that could be used in the appeal trial.
I saw the press conference of these three jurors (only time I’ve paid any attention to the trial, honestly). I actually thought they were not idiots at all, but a bit, as hajaro said, traumatized. I have to say if they were representative of the rest of the jurors, I think Scott Peterson got a fair hearing.
Still this was one of the weirder moments. The question this guy was answering was basically what did he think the motive was? He seemed stunned like the thought hadn’t even occurred to him before. And out came that strange stream of consciousness. I’d like to know what he was thinking, but my instinct is he didn’t want to talk about motive for some reason and was evading the question.
I am opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances and could probably not serve in a capital trial because of it. But in my opinion, anyone who pays taxes in a state that allows the death penalty is just as guilty as any juror. (I include myself.)
But what? Have you read what you wrote? But is contradictory. Try ‘and’. :dubious:
Tell ya what- I’ll absolve you of any guilt, as I believe people once convicted should get one immediate appeal, and that’s it. Having been found guilty by a jury of your peers not once, but twice, you are sentenced to BANG!
Hell, I’ll volunteer to mop out the docket with bleach as part of my civic duty.
Or he had already been “coached” and knew which questions, “red flag” words or topics to watch out for. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were coached before meeting the press; it’s SOP for celebs and policticians, to keep them from putting their foot in it. I would imagine that when the stakes are so high, it would be worth it to get a media coach for jurors as well, or maybe the Prosecution’s people do it themselves.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but what you interpreted as looking “stunned”, looked to me like he realized the question was one he’d been coached on, and was mentally shifting gears to bring his words in line with the way he’d been coached. Just IMHO, YMMV.
In general, of course, jurors are among the stupidest people on earth. Both sets of attorneys will try to eliminate anyone with brains, for a number of reasons:
(1) One side doesn’t have a strong evidential case, and wants jurors who will be swayed by emotion (or rhetoric) and pay no attention to facts
(2) The jurors must obey the court’s instructions and are not allowed to think for themselves
(3) The jurors must listen only to the evidence that is presented, and are not allowed to think beyond that.
Hence, yes, our system is designed so that bright people will not make it past the jury screening.
Not stupidity. Reality. Lawyers on both sides go through the jury selection process with one goal in mind: get a jury makeup that will help my side win. If only one side were doing this, it would be unfair. Since both sides are actively trying to do this (if the lawyers are competent, anyway), it gives most trials the most fair jury possible.
The comment might be cynical, but it’s correct. Hell, being a regular newspaper reader is often enough to get you kicked off a jury. They don’t want people with a strong understanding of the justice system, or (to be fair) those who’ve already formed opinions on the subject.
And some of us think that the definition is just fine; but that any intentional killing that wasn’t done to end an imminent threat to life and limb is inhumane, and thus meets that definition of “murder.”
The UK recently issued some guidelines regarding certain types of cases in which juries might ultimately not be the best deliberating entity, such as complex financial cases. There are many arguments for and against ‘professional’ jurors, such as that they might become inured to the same old arguments and start to consider some lines of persuasion as “tricks” when they might well be valid, but if that prevents the waste of time and money when a bunch of yahoos clearly behaved more like a Wheel of Fortune than a bench of careful and impartial peers, I personally advocate it.
