The whole jury thing is very different from voting.
Voters are responsible for educating themselves on the subject and making an informed choice.
A juror has all of the relevant information in the case delivered to them and then has to make a decision.
There is a difference between being ignorant and stupid.
I would make the argument that there are a great deal more of the former than the latter.
But that's precisely the point, the delivery of the case and how jury reactions shape that approach
At present there's a strong element of the theatrical in trials, merely because actual solid evidence rarely gets the same result as EMOTIONAL APPEALS
Oh hey Hunter got there first, I am surplus to requirements
This won't go away with expert jurors.
Being adequately educated on the subject matter does not magically make you impartial and immune to emotional appeals. You might be more resistant to some ploys, but lawyer tactics would shift accordingly.
The whole jury thing is very different from voting.
Voters are responsible for educating themselves on the subject and making an informed choice.
A juror has all of the relevant information in the case delivered to them and then has to make a decision.
There is a difference between being ignorant and stupid.
I would make the argument that there are a great deal more of the former than the latter.
But that's precisely the point, the delivery of the case and how jury reactions shape that approach
At present there's a strong element of the theatrical in trials, merely because actual solid evidence rarely gets the same result as EMOTIONAL APPEALS
Oh hey Hunter got there first, I am surplus to requirements
This won't go away with expert jurors.
Being adequately educated on the subject matter does not magically make you impartial and immune to emotional appeals. You might be more resistant to some ploys, but lawyer tactics would shift accordingly.
But we're in agreement! What are we even discussing here
Of course it won't vanish entirely, but the whole point is that trash-science and theatricals and lies of omission won't be the be all and end all of the presentation of cases
As with so many things in life, just because an undesirable element will remain doesn't mean that no effort should be made at all to minimise it
Edcrab on
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited December 2010
Can someone explain to me the "we will lose our freedom" 'logic' regarding if the DREAM Act ever passed?
Henroid on
0
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
even if global warming is fake (it's not), what's the big deal about not polluting the shit out of the environment and not running out of oil and all that shit?
Because to stop global warming they will have to pay money. It's the same reason there's units in a lot of refineries that have equipment that's been operating since World War II. Oil companies have a mentality that they will squeeze every last dime out of what they have, safety, efficiency, and changing views on the environment be damned. This isn't to say that our regulatory structure has made it easy to build a new refinery, because it's extremely difficult to get approval to build one, and any new plants are subject to much tighter regulation. Right now these old refineries are grandfathered into compliance with a lot of the new environmental and safety regulations, making it cheaper to keep these old shitty plants operating perpetually than to build a state of the art, clean, efficient plant.
Is this a problem with the refineries being penny pinchers, or is it that the regulations actually allowed 70 year old process units to be grandfathered in? Probably a little bit of both.
Also, even if we do spend an asston of money to try to curb our emissions, emerging markets such as China and India aren't gonna spend a dime on it. This isn't to say that we shouldn't, but it's reason to be skeptical that we'll actually have an impact by doing it.
If you're implying that the oil refining industry suffers from a lack of regulation or modern safety standards you are extremely wrong. Accidents happen because harvesting and refining huge amounts of explosive materials is a naturally hazardous business.
I'm an engineering contractor, I design this shit for a living. It's why I prefer to design new processes rather than work on existing units, because each company has different standards and maintenance/safety practices.
Edit: thought about it, removed a bit of text here.
I too am an engineering contractor and having personally spent time getting certification and entrance in to many different facilities over the last 10 years I can attest that the oil and gas industry is much more strict than power, mining, materials production, or manufacturing.
Maintenance and safety practices to a point may very but there are dozens if not hundreds of standards and certifications that compliance is required to work in and/or service oil and gas.
The whole jury thing is very different from voting.
Voters are responsible for educating themselves on the subject and making an informed choice.
A juror has all of the relevant information in the case delivered to them and then has to make a decision.
There is a difference between being ignorant and stupid.
I would make the argument that there are a great deal more of the former than the latter.
But that's precisely the point, the delivery of the case and how jury reactions shape that approach
At present there's a strong element of the theatrical in trials, merely because actual solid evidence rarely gets the same result as EMOTIONAL APPEALS
Oh hey Hunter got there first, I am surplus to requirements
This won't go away with expert jurors.
Being adequately educated on the subject matter does not magically make you impartial and immune to emotional appeals. You might be more resistant to some ploys, but lawyer tactics would shift accordingly.
But we're in agreement! What are we even discussing here
Of course it won't vanish entirely, but the whole point is that trash-science and theatricals and lies of omission won't be the be all and end all of the presentation of cases
As with so many things in life, just because an undesirable element will remain doesn't mean that no effort should be made at all to minimise it
We are discussing whether expert jurors are a good idea (I think). My original post was aimed at the parallel that was drawn between voters and jurors, but I think expert jurors is a bad idea.
Depending on the implementation, I think it would introduce a lot more problems than it might potentially fix.
Can someone explain to me the "we will lose our freedom" 'logic' regarding if the DREAM Act ever passed?
They don't want immigrants to vote, I assume. The Tea Party is basically white angst over losing their majority. Considering the country has grown from 235 million to 310 in the quarter decade I've been alive (or even shorter? Maybe that was early 90s, I forget) ... that majority is considerably eroded.
Off to the burrito place to speak fluent Spanish while I order my burrito! Mucho arroz, por favor!
Indian authorities have deployed thousands of security personnel following warnings that Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistan-based militant group, is planning an attack over the New Year weekend.
Indian authorities have deployed thousands of security personnel following warnings that Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistan-based militant group, is planning an attack over the New Year weekend.
Terrorism: It works!
Sicarii on
0
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
Indian authorities have deployed thousands of security personnel following warnings that Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistan-based militant group, is planning an attack over the New Year weekend.
Terrorism: It works!
Damn, Terrorism: You Scary!
OnTheLastCastle on
0
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
A juror has two sets of information: the set the prosecution wants them to have and the set the defense wants them to have. They are afterward asked to determine if the defense sounds ridiculous in comparison to the prosecion.
To say they have "all the relevant information" is a highly optimistic way of looking at juror decisionmaking.
A juror has two sets of information: the set the prosecution wants them to have and the set the defense wants them to have. They are afterward asked to determine if the defense sounds ridiculous in comparison to the prosecion.
To say they have "all the relevant information" is a highly optimistic way of looking at juror decisionmaking.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Do they have all of the information to discern the truth of the situation?
That entirely depends on whether the prosecution and defense are doing their jobs.
Do they have all of the information necessary to render a verdict?
Absolutely because the only information that can be used is that which was presented in the trial.
Can someone explain to me the "we will lose our freedom" 'logic' regarding if the DREAM Act ever passed?
Traditionally, there are three types of people that hate American freedom: Foreigners, socialists, and the American Government. Until these have been lain bare and impotent for all to see no one and nothing is safe.
also professional jurists would never turn corrupt
nope
You do know that we already have judges and lawyers who are professional law type people. And cops.
A professional jurist would be no more or less likely to be corrupt as the people already serving in law enforcement or the legal system.
well then let's keep it to the regular people then, as a little check and balance thing
So instead of educated and trained people making decisions that could quite literally be life or death, you want average people with little or no understanding making a choice on if you should be out of prison or in prison based on how guilty you looked, how much you resembled the guy they hated in high school, or if you cried enough during your trial for killing your wife?
What... what are you doing here? We already have professional jurists; they're called judges.
Aneurhythmia on
0
HunterChemist with a heart of AuRegistered Userregular
also professional jurists would never turn corrupt
nope
You do know that we already have judges and lawyers who are professional law type people. And cops.
A professional jurist would be no more or less likely to be corrupt as the people already serving in law enforcement or the legal system.
well then let's keep it to the regular people then, as a little check and balance thing
So instead of educated and trained people making decisions that could quite literally be life or death, you want average people with little or no understanding making a choice on if you should be out of prison or in prison based on how guilty you looked, how much you resembled the guy they hated in high school, or if you cried enough during your trial for killing your wife?
What... what are you doing here? We already have professional jurists; they're called judges.
He means in the sense of removing juries from the equation altogether so that the presiding officials are nothing but professionals as we might understand them
In Britain we actually did just that in the 1400s
(We ended up executing a bunch of them for accepting bribes)
also professional jurists would never turn corrupt
nope
You do know that we already have judges and lawyers who are professional law type people. And cops.
A professional jurist would be no more or less likely to be corrupt as the people already serving in law enforcement or the legal system.
well then let's keep it to the regular people then, as a little check and balance thing
So instead of educated and trained people making decisions that could quite literally be life or death, you want average people with little or no understanding making a choice on if you should be out of prison or in prison based on how guilty you looked, how much you resembled the guy they hated in high school, or if you cried enough during your trial for killing your wife?
What... what are you doing here? We already have professional jurists; they're called judges.
Judges are not juries.
You can have trial by judge or trial by jury. Wouldn't trial by pro-juror just be trial by judge?
risumon on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
PharezonStruggle is an illusion.Victory is in the Qun.Registered Userregular
Each time, prior to even showing up, he stated that he would find them guilty. Man/Woman didn't matter.
His justification?
"Everyone is guilty of something, I'm just Karma."
That's funny in a retarded sort of way.
Pharezon on
0
HunterChemist with a heart of AuRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
The problem with juries is the lack of knowledge in law and now specifically science to understand all the intricacies of what will come up in the case. Not to mention having a pool of people that fall for appeals to emotion or look for them instead of facts.
The good thing about juries is that it's a consensus from a group, which at least moves you towards getting a better verdict than a single ruling by a judge. Doing a hybrid of a jury trial with educated professional jurists being overseen by a judge seems far more reasonable.
also professional jurists would never turn corrupt
nope
You do know that we already have judges and lawyers who are professional law type people. And cops.
A professional jurist would be no more or less likely to be corrupt as the people already serving in law enforcement or the legal system.
well then let's keep it to the regular people then, as a little check and balance thing
So instead of educated and trained people making decisions that could quite literally be life or death, you want average people with little or no understanding making a choice on if you should be out of prison or in prison based on how guilty you looked, how much you resembled the guy they hated in high school, or if you cried enough during your trial for killing your wife?
What... what are you doing here? We already have professional jurists; they're called judges.
Judges are not juries.
You can have trial by judge or trial by jury. Wouldn't trial by pro-juror just be trial by judge?
No, a trial by a jury made up of professional jurors would be a trial with a jury, but the jury is made up of people who know the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground when it comes to basic concepts of law, police procedure, and forensic science.
Posts
fuuuuuuuuuuuuck you
http://www.audioentropy.com/
No movie or TV show has ever portrayed the legal system, or the procedure of a trial, with complete accuracy.
If they did, they'd be 50 hours long and boring as fuck.
This won't go away with expert jurors.
Being adequately educated on the subject matter does not magically make you impartial and immune to emotional appeals. You might be more resistant to some ploys, but lawyer tactics would shift accordingly.
But yeah it's entertaining enough.
But we're in agreement! What are we even discussing here
Of course it won't vanish entirely, but the whole point is that trash-science and theatricals and lies of omission won't be the be all and end all of the presentation of cases
As with so many things in life, just because an undesirable element will remain doesn't mean that no effort should be made at all to minimise it
I too am an engineering contractor and having personally spent time getting certification and entrance in to many different facilities over the last 10 years I can attest that the oil and gas industry is much more strict than power, mining, materials production, or manufacturing.
Maintenance and safety practices to a point may very but there are dozens if not hundreds of standards and certifications that compliance is required to work in and/or service oil and gas.
We are discussing whether expert jurors are a good idea (I think). My original post was aimed at the parallel that was drawn between voters and jurors, but I think expert jurors is a bad idea.
Depending on the implementation, I think it would introduce a lot more problems than it might potentially fix.
They don't want immigrants to vote, I assume. The Tea Party is basically white angst over losing their majority. Considering the country has grown from 235 million to 310 in the quarter decade I've been alive (or even shorter? Maybe that was early 90s, I forget) ... that majority is considerably eroded.
Off to the burrito place to speak fluent Spanish while I order my burrito! Mucho arroz, por favor!
Big Goverment Henroid!
(honestly I have no idea on that one.)
Terrorism: It works!
Damn, Terrorism: You Scary!
Heh
Heh
Hah
Hah
?
To say they have "all the relevant information" is a highly optimistic way of looking at juror decisionmaking.
HO HO HO
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
And a neat sled!
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Do they have all of the information to discern the truth of the situation?
That entirely depends on whether the prosecution and defense are doing their jobs.
Do they have all of the information necessary to render a verdict?
Absolutely because the only information that can be used is that which was presented in the trial.
Traditionally, there are three types of people that hate American freedom: Foreigners, socialists, and the American Government. Until these have been lain bare and impotent for all to see no one and nothing is safe.
What... what are you doing here? We already have professional jurists; they're called judges.
Judges are not juries.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
In Britain we actually did just that in the 1400s
(We ended up executing a bunch of them for accepting bribes)
Each time, prior to even showing up, he stated that he would find them guilty. Man/Woman didn't matter.
His justification?
"Everyone is guilty of something, I'm just Karma."
You can have trial by judge or trial by jury. Wouldn't trial by pro-juror just be trial by judge?
That's funny in a retarded sort of way.
The good thing about juries is that it's a consensus from a group, which at least moves you towards getting a better verdict than a single ruling by a judge. Doing a hybrid of a jury trial with educated professional jurists being overseen by a judge seems far more reasonable.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
Don't let his slick suit and hand gestures distract you from the truth.
No, a trial by a jury made up of professional jurors would be a trial with a jury, but the jury is made up of people who know the difference between their ass and a hole in the ground when it comes to basic concepts of law, police procedure, and forensic science.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
Kill All Baby Boomers
"I'm trying I'm trying."
- Father Time, 1980-Present
What spring does with the cherry trees.
Death to the infirmed!
Hunter for Natural Selection.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
i think maybe he wants to be tried by a panel of experts