Okay seriously, I need Oliver Stone to make a movie about how this is a conspiracy and Trump is at the center of it.
You got the wrong former US president
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
Okay seriously, I need Oliver Stone to make a movie about how this is a conspiracy and Trump is at the center of it.
You got the wrong former US president
Warren G. Harding? It's finally time?
Given that Harding was an unrepentant horndog that regularly fucked teenagers and was one of the first PotUS's to face allegations of a love child (with a gal he deflowered when she was 18 and he was a Senator), he'd be the front runner to be in the middle of that kinda web.
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
Okay seriously, I need Oliver Stone to make a movie about how this is a conspiracy and Trump is at the center of it.
You got the wrong former US president
Warren G. Harding? It's finally time?
Given that Harding was an unrepentant horndog that regularly fucked teenagers and was one of the first PotUS's to face allegations of a love child (with a gal he deflowered when she was 18 and he was a Senator), he'd be the front runner to be in the middle of that kinda web.
Sally Hemmings would like to correct you on a few things.
Okay seriously, I need Oliver Stone to make a movie about how this is a conspiracy and Trump is at the center of it.
You got the wrong former US president
Warren G. Harding? It's finally time?
Given that Harding was an unrepentant horndog that regularly fucked teenagers and was one of the first PotUS's to face allegations of a love child (with a gal he deflowered when she was 18 and he was a Senator), he'd be the front runner to be in the middle of that kinda web.
Sally Hemmings would like to correct you on a few things.
Perhaps I should ammend that to "in their lifetimes". TJ didn't face much contemporary scrutiny or poltical pressure for doing what a fair percentage of plantation owners did.
Warren paid Nan Britton hush money to keep stuff outta the papers during his presidential run, which she respected til he died (though they kept knocking boots, apparently even in a small closet off the Oval Office) , then she wrote a tell all book called "The President's Daughter".
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
Clotel; or, The President's Daughter was published only a couple decades after his death, and cribbed heavily from the contemporary rumors about Hemmings. That Thomas Jefferson had his extended family and American historians denying the truth of the matter for 200+ years doesn't mean it wasn't a topic while he was alive. It's a great example of how revisionist and slanted our popularly-understood idea of history can be, but also I'll grant it's a bit of a tangent for me to be going on.
Ghislaine Maxwell is denied her motion for a new trial after one of the jurors failed to fully read their paperwork and announced after the trial that the juror had previously been the victim of sexual abuse. Sentencing is scheduled for 28th of June.
Ghislaine Maxwell is denied her motion for a new trial after one of the jurors failed to fully read their paperwork and announced after the trial that the juror had previously been the victim of sexual abuse. Sentencing is scheduled for 28th of June.
I have to say that the thought of this monster going free, or even getting a new trial because a juror might be biased against sexual abuse because they, themselves were a victim makes my gorge rise. Not just that asking people to disclose that is gross, but given how high the percentage of abuse victims is in this country (and the world), I can't even imagine a group of 12 peers that doesn't include at least one survivor.
I have to say that the thought of this monster going free, or even getting a new trial because a juror might be biased against sexual abuse because they, themselves were a victim makes my gorge rise. Not just that asking people to disclose that is gross, but given how high the percentage of abuse victims is in this country (and the world), I can't even imagine a group of 12 peers that doesn't include at least one survivor.
Honestly, as a non-US outside observer, sometimes these jury selections feel like lawyers arguing that human beings would be biased and should be removed.
I have to say that the thought of this monster going free, or even getting a new trial because a juror might be biased against sexual abuse because they, themselves were a victim makes my gorge rise. Not just that asking people to disclose that is gross, but given how high the percentage of abuse victims is in this country (and the world), I can't even imagine a group of 12 peers that doesn't include at least one survivor.
Honestly, as a non-US outside observer, sometimes these jury selections feel like lawyers arguing that human beings would be biased and should be removed.
I have to say that the thought of this monster going free, or even getting a new trial because a juror might be biased against sexual abuse because they, themselves were a victim makes my gorge rise. Not just that asking people to disclose that is gross, but given how high the percentage of abuse victims is in this country (and the world), I can't even imagine a group of 12 peers that doesn't include at least one survivor.
Honestly, as a non-US outside observer, sometimes these jury selections feel like lawyers arguing that human beings would be biased and should be removed.
Basically, yes. For States that have Capital Punishment you are literally not allowed on a jury in a capital case if you are opposed to the death penalty in general.
moniker on
+8
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
I have to say that the thought of this monster going free, or even getting a new trial because a juror might be biased against sexual abuse because they, themselves were a victim makes my gorge rise. Not just that asking people to disclose that is gross, but given how high the percentage of abuse victims is in this country (and the world), I can't even imagine a group of 12 peers that doesn't include at least one survivor.
Honestly, as a non-US outside observer, sometimes these jury selections feel like lawyers arguing that human beings would be biased and should be removed.
Basically, yes. For States that have Capital Punishment you are literally not allowed on a jury in a capital case if you are opposed to the death penalty in general.
Putting aside the ethical issues of death sentences, you really can't logically have a jury member on a execution case if they oppose capital punishment. The jury is there to conclude guilt or innocence, not object to a method of punishment. You don't want people saying Not Guilty on a case where guilt is extremely clear-cut just because they don't like the punishment that goes with the verdict.
I have to say that the thought of this monster going free, or even getting a new trial because a juror might be biased against sexual abuse because they, themselves were a victim makes my gorge rise. Not just that asking people to disclose that is gross, but given how high the percentage of abuse victims is in this country (and the world), I can't even imagine a group of 12 peers that doesn't include at least one survivor.
Honestly, as a non-US outside observer, sometimes these jury selections feel like lawyers arguing that human beings would be biased and should be removed.
Basically, yes. For States that have Capital Punishment you are literally not allowed on a jury in a capital case if you are opposed to the death penalty in general.
Putting aside the ethical issues of death sentences, you really can't logically have a jury member on a execution case if they oppose capital punishment. The jury is there to conclude guilt or innocence, not object to a method of punishment. You don't want people saying Not Guilty on a case where guilt is extremely clear-cut just because they don't like the punishment that goes with the verdict.
Sentences are a range. I know some states make capital punishment a separate question. And opposition to the death penalty probably has statistical correlations that lead to removing those people stacking the jury for the prosecution.
I have to say that the thought of this monster going free, or even getting a new trial because a juror might be biased against sexual abuse because they, themselves were a victim makes my gorge rise. Not just that asking people to disclose that is gross, but given how high the percentage of abuse victims is in this country (and the world), I can't even imagine a group of 12 peers that doesn't include at least one survivor.
Honestly, as a non-US outside observer, sometimes these jury selections feel like lawyers arguing that human beings would be biased and should be removed.
Basically, yes. For States that have Capital Punishment you are literally not allowed on a jury in a capital case if you are opposed to the death penalty in general.
Or if you are on a jury for a case that hinges on DNA evidence. If you have a background in biology there’s no chance you’ll make it on.
I have to say that the thought of this monster going free, or even getting a new trial because a juror might be biased against sexual abuse because they, themselves were a victim makes my gorge rise. Not just that asking people to disclose that is gross, but given how high the percentage of abuse victims is in this country (and the world), I can't even imagine a group of 12 peers that doesn't include at least one survivor.
Honestly, as a non-US outside observer, sometimes these jury selections feel like lawyers arguing that human beings would be biased and should be removed.
Basically, yes. For States that have Capital Punishment you are literally not allowed on a jury in a capital case if you are opposed to the death penalty in general.
Putting aside the ethical issues of death sentences, you really can't logically have a jury member on a execution case if they oppose capital punishment. The jury is there to conclude guilt or innocence, not object to a method of punishment. You don't want people saying Not Guilty on a case where guilt is extremely clear-cut just because they don't like the punishment that goes with the verdict.
The solution to that is not to pick the kind of people who like the death penalty, since this make the whole trial blatantly biased against the accused.
Give the jury another option instead.
Also, abolish the death penalty, but that's orthogonal.
+5
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
edited April 2022
Yeah, the core issue is removing the death penalty for removing the logical inconsistency, but the practical solution is that you just can't have jurors that are anti-execution (I seriously almost typed pro-life there for a second) or else you're allowing the process to be warped by personal viewpoints that affect the choices made without being concerned with anything in the case itself.
Yeah, the core issue is removing the death penalty for removing the logical inconsistency, but the practical solution is that you just can't have jurors that are anti-execution (I seriously almost typed pro-life there for a second) or else you're allowing the process to be warped by personal viewpoints that affect the choices made without being concerned with anything in the case itself.
It does pre-suppose that all of those rejected would violate the oath.
At least in the two times I've had to do jury duty, I had to swear an oath that would be violated if I refused to convict based on my philosophy regarding the death penalty (not that it's an issue here, as we haven't permitted the death penalty for nearly 50 years).
You (or, if more than one person affirms, you and each of you) solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that you will faithfully and impartially try the issues between the Crown and [name of accused] in relation to all charges brought against [name of accused] in this trial and give a true verdict according to the evidence.
I have to say that the thought of this monster going free, or even getting a new trial because a juror might be biased against sexual abuse because they, themselves were a victim makes my gorge rise. Not just that asking people to disclose that is gross, but given how high the percentage of abuse victims is in this country (and the world), I can't even imagine a group of 12 peers that doesn't include at least one survivor.
Honestly, as a non-US outside observer, sometimes these jury selections feel like lawyers arguing that human beings would be biased and should be removed.
Basically, yes. For States that have Capital Punishment you are literally not allowed on a jury in a capital case if you are opposed to the death penalty in general.
Putting aside the ethical issues of death sentences, you really can't logically have a jury member on a execution case if they oppose capital punishment. The jury is there to conclude guilt or innocence, not object to a method of punishment. You don't want people saying Not Guilty on a case where guilt is extremely clear-cut just because they don't like the punishment that goes with the verdict.
Sentences are a range. I know some states make capital punishment a separate question. And opposition to the death penalty probably has statistical correlations that lead to removing those people stacking the jury for the prosecution.
Yep. You can still find guilt as sentencing is separate from whether or not they did the thing, and then oppose the use of the death sentence for alternative sentences that are also applicable. Seeing how opposition to the death penalty skews along particular axis it is inherently biasing the jury pool to exclude them, and for a case that should require the most stringent protections for the accused to ensure you don't execute the wrong person.
God it pisses me off that shithead like this try to get a ruling thrown out. There are things that I would hope people are biased against: racism, murder and candy corn pizza to name a few.
These scum seem to forget, that the only thing that matters with a juror is that they come into trail as a blank slate on whether a defendant is guilty or innocent and that it's only the trial that moves their opinion. They forget that the biases you're are trying remove, are ones that unjustly harm the fairness of a trail, since there is no way for them to meet that criteria because they have a bias that views anyone of a certain race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, income, economic class, profession, ability and anything else I'm missing, in a certain light (ex. White dude couldn't have done X robbery because the perp had to be really good at jumping in order to break in and we all know white people can't jump. That physical disabled person is guilty of illegal trespassing because there is no way someone like that would have any business being there. Reward that little old lady $Texas because little old ladies could never lie).
There is there is conflict of interest, where the juror doesn't have a bias against the defendant or plaintiff, but ensuring that justice is rendered might not meat their interests. (ex. Activision Blizzard gets taken to court over covering up sexual abuse and a potential juror gets found to own stocks in Activision Blizzard. I like this because it's also an example where both plaintiff and defense might object to this juror as not being able to render a fair verdict. They could rule in the company's favor, in hopes of the not guilty verdict resulting in their stockings going up in value long enough that they can sell them for a higher profit. Conversely, they rule against the company in hopes that the ruling temporally depresses the stocks and maybe get to buy up more on the cheap).
The thing that really irritates me about this is, that they are insinuating that the jury is trying to determine something that isn't even on trial. This case wasn't about whether sexual abuse is really abhorrent, it is. It wasn't about whether the laws against sexual abuse are constitutional and when such trials do happen, they don't go to jury consideration, that's something we leave up to the judges serving in he courts. The question of that trial was "Is Ghislaine Maxwell guilty of sexual abuse?" Regardless how someone feels about sexual abuse matters not, nor does it matter if they were a victim.
I have to say that the thought of this monster going free, or even getting a new trial because a juror might be biased against sexual abuse because they, themselves were a victim makes my gorge rise. Not just that asking people to disclose that is gross, but given how high the percentage of abuse victims is in this country (and the world), I can't even imagine a group of 12 peers that doesn't include at least one survivor.
Honestly, as a non-US outside observer, sometimes these jury selections feel like lawyers arguing that human beings would be biased and should be removed.
Basically, yes. For States that have Capital Punishment you are literally not allowed on a jury in a capital case if you are opposed to the death penalty in general.
Putting aside the ethical issues of death sentences, you really can't logically have a jury member on a execution case if they oppose capital punishment. The jury is there to conclude guilt or innocence, not object to a method of punishment. You don't want people saying Not Guilty on a case where guilt is extremely clear-cut just because they don't like the punishment that goes with the verdict.
Sentences are a range. I know some states make capital punishment a separate question. And opposition to the death penalty probably has statistical correlations that lead to removing those people stacking the jury for the prosecution.
Yep. You can still find guilt as sentencing is separate from whether or not they did the thing, and then oppose the use of the death sentence for alternative sentences that are also applicable. Seeing how opposition to the death penalty skews along particular axis it is inherently biasing the jury pool to exclude them, and for a case that should require the most stringent protections for the accused to ensure you don't execute the wrong person.
I'mma be honest. If I knew the death penalty was a possible or likely sentence for the crime I was jury-ing, I think that would affect my verdict.
I have to say that the thought of this monster going free, or even getting a new trial because a juror might be biased against sexual abuse because they, themselves were a victim makes my gorge rise. Not just that asking people to disclose that is gross, but given how high the percentage of abuse victims is in this country (and the world), I can't even imagine a group of 12 peers that doesn't include at least one survivor.
Honestly, as a non-US outside observer, sometimes these jury selections feel like lawyers arguing that human beings would be biased and should be removed.
Basically, yes. For States that have Capital Punishment you are literally not allowed on a jury in a capital case if you are opposed to the death penalty in general.
Putting aside the ethical issues of death sentences, you really can't logically have a jury member on a execution case if they oppose capital punishment. The jury is there to conclude guilt or innocence, not object to a method of punishment. You don't want people saying Not Guilty on a case where guilt is extremely clear-cut just because they don't like the punishment that goes with the verdict.
Sentences are a range. I know some states make capital punishment a separate question. And opposition to the death penalty probably has statistical correlations that lead to removing those people stacking the jury for the prosecution.
Yep. You can still find guilt as sentencing is separate from whether or not they did the thing, and then oppose the use of the death sentence for alternative sentences that are also applicable. Seeing how opposition to the death penalty skews along particular axis it is inherently biasing the jury pool to exclude them, and for a case that should require the most stringent protections for the accused to ensure you don't execute the wrong person.
I'mma be honest. If I knew the death penalty was a possible or likely sentence for the crime I was jury-ing, I think that would affect my verdict.
Selecting for people who want to kill, or who automatically agree with the prosecutions, or think that innocents cannot be accused is still not a solution.
+12
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
God it pisses me off that shithead like this try to get a ruling thrown out. There are things that I would hope people are biased against: racism, murder and candy corn pizza to name a few.
This is one of the nastier poisons in our current legal system: defense attorneys trying to win at literally any cost to justice or society versus the intended purpose of defense attorneys making sure their client gets a fair trail under the law. We should be able to disbar attorneys with a clear history of violating the spirit of the system by twisting the words of the system.
God it pisses me off that shithead like this try to get a ruling thrown out. There are things that I would hope people are biased against: racism, murder and candy corn pizza to name a few.
This is one of the nastier poisons in our current legal system: defense attorneys trying to win at literally any cost to justice or society versus the intended purpose of defense attorneys making sure their client gets a fair trail under the law. We should be able to disbar attorneys with a clear history of violating the spirit of the system by twisting the words of the system.
I'll take defense attorneys twisting the letter of the law over prosecutors doing the same, or worse.
Hearing about prosecutors doing shady or illegal shit, and facing no peraonal consequences?
I just wish the shady defense lawyers weren't primarily hired by rich scumbags.
I think in most places they separate the guilt phase from the sentencing phase so one jury decides whether someone committed the crime and then another jury hears evidence and determines whether it warrants the death penalty. Barring people who oppose the death penalty from the guilt phase is unconscionable, but barring them from the second is bad but I can kind of see the rationale for it.
I think in most places they separate the guilt phase from the sentencing phase so one jury decides whether someone committed the crime and then another jury hears evidence and determines whether it warrants the death penalty. Barring people who oppose the death penalty from the guilt phase is unconscionable, but barring them from the second is bad but I can kind of see the rationale for it.
But you know, abolish the death penalty.
The screaming irony to me, is the people who don't think that the government can be trusted with taxes/vaccines/votecounts/aliens/military power/etc, are also the people who tend to overlap most with allowing the government to literally have the power of life and death, despite it proven to not be as infallible as it needs to be if it's to be applied justly.
The overlap between those that oppose abortion and voluntary euthanasia (because all life is sacred), but are in favor of the death penalty, is also a weird dissonance.
I think in most places they separate the guilt phase from the sentencing phase so one jury decides whether someone committed the crime and then another jury hears evidence and determines whether it warrants the death penalty. Barring people who oppose the death penalty from the guilt phase is unconscionable, but barring them from the second is bad but I can kind of see the rationale for it.
But you know, abolish the death penalty.
The screaming irony to me, is the people who don't think that the government can be trusted with taxes/vaccines/votecounts/aliens/military power/etc, are also the people who tend to overlap most with allowing the government to literally have the power of life and death, despite it proven to not be as infallible as it needs to be if it's to be applied justly.
The overlap between those that oppose abortion and voluntary euthanasia (because all life is sacred), but are in favor of the death penalty, is also a weird dissonance.
It's a logically consistent worldview, once you understand what it consists of, which is wielding power over others that you yourself are not beholden to.
I have to say that the thought of this monster going free, or even getting a new trial because a juror might be biased against sexual abuse because they, themselves were a victim makes my gorge rise. Not just that asking people to disclose that is gross, but given how high the percentage of abuse victims is in this country (and the world), I can't even imagine a group of 12 peers that doesn't include at least one survivor.
Honestly, as a non-US outside observer, sometimes these jury selections feel like lawyers arguing that human beings would be biased and should be removed.
Basically, yes. For States that have Capital Punishment you are literally not allowed on a jury in a capital case if you are opposed to the death penalty in general.
Putting aside the ethical issues of death sentences, you really can't logically have a jury member on a execution case if they oppose capital punishment. The jury is there to conclude guilt or innocence, not object to a method of punishment. You don't want people saying Not Guilty on a case where guilt is extremely clear-cut just because they don't like the punishment that goes with the verdict.
Maybe I'm misreading you, but doesn't this work exactly the same when you turn it around?
Should we be just as worried about people who don't oppose capital punishment? We don't want people voting guilty on a case where the defendant's guilt is in doubt just because they do like the idea of the punishment that goes with the verdict.
I think the idea behind it is that the legislature has decided that capital punishment should exist. It should not be up to the trial courts to decide if capital punishment should exist. If it is addressed by the courts at all it would be through the appelate courts and that would be on the question whether the legislature acted properly in enacting the punishment.
If a particular juror has a problem with the death penalty they should vote for representatives who will remove it, not use the jury to do it because the jury is there to determine facts, not law.
DisruptedCapitalist on
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
I think the idea behind it is that the legislature has decided that capital punishment should exist. It should not be up to the trial courts to decide if capital punishment should exist. If it is addressed by the courts at all it would be through the alternate courts and that would be on the question whether the legislature acted properly in enacting the punishment.
Is a particular juror has a problem with the death penalty they should vote for representatives who will remove it, not use the jury to do it because the jury is there to determine facts, not law.
Which flies in the face of our checks and balances model.
I think the idea behind it is that the legislature has decided that capital punishment should exist. It should not be up to the trial courts to decide if capital punishment should exist. If it is addressed by the courts at all it would be through the alternate courts and that would be on the question whether the legislature acted properly in enacting the punishment.
Is a particular juror has a problem with the death penalty they should vote for representatives who will remove it, not use the jury to do it because the jury is there to determine facts, not law.
Sure, but let's be honest and change the question from "do you oppose the death penalty" to "do you question the prosecutor and believe police officers are not always trustworthy ?"
I have to say that the thought of this monster going free, or even getting a new trial because a juror might be biased against sexual abuse because they, themselves were a victim makes my gorge rise. Not just that asking people to disclose that is gross, but given how high the percentage of abuse victims is in this country (and the world), I can't even imagine a group of 12 peers that doesn't include at least one survivor.
Honestly, as a non-US outside observer, sometimes these jury selections feel like lawyers arguing that human beings would be biased and should be removed.
Basically, yes. For States that have Capital Punishment you are literally not allowed on a jury in a capital case if you are opposed to the death penalty in general.
Putting aside the ethical issues of death sentences, you really can't logically have a jury member on a execution case if they oppose capital punishment. The jury is there to conclude guilt or innocence, not object to a method of punishment. You don't want people saying Not Guilty on a case where guilt is extremely clear-cut just because they don't like the punishment that goes with the verdict.
Maybe I'm misreading you, but doesn't this work exactly the same when you turn it around?
Should we be just as worried about people who don't oppose capital punishment? We don't want people voting guilty on a case where the defendant's guilt is in doubt just because they do like the idea of the punishment that goes with the verdict.
As I understand it, the actual "death-qualified jury" thing in the US requires jurors in relevant cases to
Not be morally opposed to the death penalty
Not believe that it's the only suitable punishment for murder (i.e. they'd accept life imprisonment)
So it does go both ways, kind of. Maybe. In practice it seems like death-qualified jurors have a higher-than-average rate of voting guilty, though, so there's clearly some huge issues with the whole thing.
I have to say that the thought of this monster going free, or even getting a new trial because a juror might be biased against sexual abuse because they, themselves were a victim makes my gorge rise. Not just that asking people to disclose that is gross, but given how high the percentage of abuse victims is in this country (and the world), I can't even imagine a group of 12 peers that doesn't include at least one survivor.
Honestly, as a non-US outside observer, sometimes these jury selections feel like lawyers arguing that human beings would be biased and should be removed.
Basically, yes. For States that have Capital Punishment you are literally not allowed on a jury in a capital case if you are opposed to the death penalty in general.
Putting aside the ethical issues of death sentences, you really can't logically have a jury member on a execution case if they oppose capital punishment. The jury is there to conclude guilt or innocence, not object to a method of punishment. You don't want people saying Not Guilty on a case where guilt is extremely clear-cut just because they don't like the punishment that goes with the verdict.
Maybe I'm misreading you, but doesn't this work exactly the same when you turn it around?
Should we be just as worried about people who don't oppose capital punishment? We don't want people voting guilty on a case where the defendant's guilt is in doubt just because they do like the idea of the punishment that goes with the verdict.
As I understand it, the actual "death-qualified jury" thing in the US requires jurors in relevant cases to
Not be morally opposed to the death penalty
Not believe that it's the only suitable punishment for murder (i.e. they'd accept life imprisonment)
So it does go both ways, kind of. Maybe. In practice it seems like death-qualified jurors have a higher-than-average rate of voting guilty, though, so there's clearly some huge issues with the whole thing.
That selects for center-right people, because a large proportion of moderate-to-far-left people are absolutely against the death penalty. Also bans Quakers from serving on the jury as their dogma (such as it is) is anti-death penalty, which seems dodgy in terms of freedom of religion.
I think the idea behind it is that the legislature has decided that capital punishment should exist. It should not be up to the trial courts to decide if capital punishment should exist. If it is addressed by the courts at all it would be through the alternate courts and that would be on the question whether the legislature acted properly in enacting the punishment.
Is a particular juror has a problem with the death penalty they should vote for representatives who will remove it, not use the jury to do it because the jury is there to determine facts, not law.
Which flies in the face of our checks and balances model.
No it doesn't. Jurors are not intended to be a check on the legislative branch and neither are trial courts that are deciding the facts of a case. The judiciary branch is a check on the legislative branch through judicial review. I don't believe that there was ever any intention that jurors be part of judicial review.
I think the idea behind it is that the legislature has decided that capital punishment should exist. It should not be up to the trial courts to decide if capital punishment should exist. If it is addressed by the courts at all it would be through the alternate courts and that would be on the question whether the legislature acted properly in enacting the punishment.
Is a particular juror has a problem with the death penalty they should vote for representatives who will remove it, not use the jury to do it because the jury is there to determine facts, not law.
Which flies in the face of our checks and balances model.
No it doesn't. Jurors are not intended to be a check on the legislative branch and neither are trial courts that are deciding the facts of a case. The judiciary branch is a check on the legislative branch through judicial review. I don't believe that there was ever any intention that jurors be part of judicial review.
Jury nullification is an inherent power of a jury to decide the law itself is wrong.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
Jury nullification is just a legal concept, it's not codified in the laws or constitution. Juries are usually told they are not supposed to decide the law but the facts only. That said, it is part of common law, i.e. the law of the courts dating back to English law, but courts go out of their way to hide that knowledge from juries.
Either way, it has nothing to do with the constitutional concept of checks and balances.
DisruptedCapitalist on
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
This conversation about Ghislaine Maxwell's particular case is turning into an all-purpose freewheeling debate about the mechanics of jury selection generally, death penalty philosophy, culpability, and the separation of powers without any real connection to the case
a motion for new trial is a basic, entirely expected post-trial motion and Maxwell got lucky that one juror's undisclosed life experience possibly bearing on bias served as a possible basis to hook the motion on. She lost, and now she's going to repeat those arguments on appeal. It doesn't say much about the entire body of reasons we have juries, how they get selected, why we do it this way or how, or the philosophy of crime, justice, or punishment. this is the system working as designed!
It's functionally impossible to avoid the possibility of nullification without making the jury a rubber stamp.
The judiciary really, really doesn't like it. (and in sheer numbers its probably let off more people because racism than anything else)
I suspect that the judiciary doesn't like juries at all, because they are inconvenient, a hassle, take up a lot of their time, have to be herded like cats, and are doing a job the Judge probably feels the judge is better qualified to do.
Posts
You got the wrong former US president
Warren G. Harding? It's finally time?
Given that Harding was an unrepentant horndog that regularly fucked teenagers and was one of the first PotUS's to face allegations of a love child (with a gal he deflowered when she was 18 and he was a Senator), he'd be the front runner to be in the middle of that kinda web.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Sally Hemmings would like to correct you on a few things.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Perhaps I should ammend that to "in their lifetimes". TJ didn't face much contemporary scrutiny or poltical pressure for doing what a fair percentage of plantation owners did.
Warren paid Nan Britton hush money to keep stuff outta the papers during his presidential run, which she respected til he died (though they kept knocking boots, apparently even in a small closet off the Oval Office) , then she wrote a tell all book called "The President's Daughter".
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I have to say that the thought of this monster going free, or even getting a new trial because a juror might be biased against sexual abuse because they, themselves were a victim makes my gorge rise. Not just that asking people to disclose that is gross, but given how high the percentage of abuse victims is in this country (and the world), I can't even imagine a group of 12 peers that doesn't include at least one survivor.
Honestly, as a non-US outside observer, sometimes these jury selections feel like lawyers arguing that human beings would be biased and should be removed.
That was the other thing, yeah.
Unless they're correctly biased, obviously.
Basically, yes. For States that have Capital Punishment you are literally not allowed on a jury in a capital case if you are opposed to the death penalty in general.
Putting aside the ethical issues of death sentences, you really can't logically have a jury member on a execution case if they oppose capital punishment. The jury is there to conclude guilt or innocence, not object to a method of punishment. You don't want people saying Not Guilty on a case where guilt is extremely clear-cut just because they don't like the punishment that goes with the verdict.
Sentences are a range. I know some states make capital punishment a separate question. And opposition to the death penalty probably has statistical correlations that lead to removing those people stacking the jury for the prosecution.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Or if you are on a jury for a case that hinges on DNA evidence. If you have a background in biology there’s no chance you’ll make it on.
The solution to that is not to pick the kind of people who like the death penalty, since this make the whole trial blatantly biased against the accused.
Give the jury another option instead.
Also, abolish the death penalty, but that's orthogonal.
It does pre-suppose that all of those rejected would violate the oath.
At least in the two times I've had to do jury duty, I had to swear an oath that would be violated if I refused to convict based on my philosophy regarding the death penalty (not that it's an issue here, as we haven't permitted the death penalty for nearly 50 years).
Yep. You can still find guilt as sentencing is separate from whether or not they did the thing, and then oppose the use of the death sentence for alternative sentences that are also applicable. Seeing how opposition to the death penalty skews along particular axis it is inherently biasing the jury pool to exclude them, and for a case that should require the most stringent protections for the accused to ensure you don't execute the wrong person.
These scum seem to forget, that the only thing that matters with a juror is that they come into trail as a blank slate on whether a defendant is guilty or innocent and that it's only the trial that moves their opinion. They forget that the biases you're are trying remove, are ones that unjustly harm the fairness of a trail, since there is no way for them to meet that criteria because they have a bias that views anyone of a certain race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, income, economic class, profession, ability and anything else I'm missing, in a certain light (ex. White dude couldn't have done X robbery because the perp had to be really good at jumping in order to break in and we all know white people can't jump. That physical disabled person is guilty of illegal trespassing because there is no way someone like that would have any business being there. Reward that little old lady $Texas because little old ladies could never lie).
There is there is conflict of interest, where the juror doesn't have a bias against the defendant or plaintiff, but ensuring that justice is rendered might not meat their interests. (ex. Activision Blizzard gets taken to court over covering up sexual abuse and a potential juror gets found to own stocks in Activision Blizzard. I like this because it's also an example where both plaintiff and defense might object to this juror as not being able to render a fair verdict. They could rule in the company's favor, in hopes of the not guilty verdict resulting in their stockings going up in value long enough that they can sell them for a higher profit. Conversely, they rule against the company in hopes that the ruling temporally depresses the stocks and maybe get to buy up more on the cheap).
The thing that really irritates me about this is, that they are insinuating that the jury is trying to determine something that isn't even on trial. This case wasn't about whether sexual abuse is really abhorrent, it is. It wasn't about whether the laws against sexual abuse are constitutional and when such trials do happen, they don't go to jury consideration, that's something we leave up to the judges serving in he courts. The question of that trial was "Is Ghislaine Maxwell guilty of sexual abuse?" Regardless how someone feels about sexual abuse matters not, nor does it matter if they were a victim.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I'mma be honest. If I knew the death penalty was a possible or likely sentence for the crime I was jury-ing, I think that would affect my verdict.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Selecting for people who want to kill, or who automatically agree with the prosecutions, or think that innocents cannot be accused is still not a solution.
This is one of the nastier poisons in our current legal system: defense attorneys trying to win at literally any cost to justice or society versus the intended purpose of defense attorneys making sure their client gets a fair trail under the law. We should be able to disbar attorneys with a clear history of violating the spirit of the system by twisting the words of the system.
I'll take defense attorneys twisting the letter of the law over prosecutors doing the same, or worse.
Hearing about prosecutors doing shady or illegal shit, and facing no peraonal consequences?
I just wish the shady defense lawyers weren't primarily hired by rich scumbags.
But you know, abolish the death penalty.
The screaming irony to me, is the people who don't think that the government can be trusted with taxes/vaccines/votecounts/aliens/military power/etc, are also the people who tend to overlap most with allowing the government to literally have the power of life and death, despite it proven to not be as infallible as it needs to be if it's to be applied justly.
The overlap between those that oppose abortion and voluntary euthanasia (because all life is sacred), but are in favor of the death penalty, is also a weird dissonance.
It's a logically consistent worldview, once you understand what it consists of, which is wielding power over others that you yourself are not beholden to.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Maybe I'm misreading you, but doesn't this work exactly the same when you turn it around?
Should we be just as worried about people who don't oppose capital punishment? We don't want people voting guilty on a case where the defendant's guilt is in doubt just because they do like the idea of the punishment that goes with the verdict.
If a particular juror has a problem with the death penalty they should vote for representatives who will remove it, not use the jury to do it because the jury is there to determine facts, not law.
Which flies in the face of our checks and balances model.
Sure, but let's be honest and change the question from "do you oppose the death penalty" to "do you question the prosecutor and believe police officers are not always trustworthy ?"
Because I can assure you there's a correlation.
As I understand it, the actual "death-qualified jury" thing in the US requires jurors in relevant cases to
- Not be morally opposed to the death penalty
- Not believe that it's the only suitable punishment for murder (i.e. they'd accept life imprisonment)
So it does go both ways, kind of. Maybe. In practice it seems like death-qualified jurors have a higher-than-average rate of voting guilty, though, so there's clearly some huge issues with the whole thing.That selects for center-right people, because a large proportion of moderate-to-far-left people are absolutely against the death penalty. Also bans Quakers from serving on the jury as their dogma (such as it is) is anti-death penalty, which seems dodgy in terms of freedom of religion.
No it doesn't. Jurors are not intended to be a check on the legislative branch and neither are trial courts that are deciding the facts of a case. The judiciary branch is a check on the legislative branch through judicial review. I don't believe that there was ever any intention that jurors be part of judicial review.
Jury nullification is an inherent power of a jury to decide the law itself is wrong.
Either way, it has nothing to do with the constitutional concept of checks and balances.
The judiciary really, really doesn't like it. (and in sheer numbers its probably let off more people because racism than anything else)
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
a motion for new trial is a basic, entirely expected post-trial motion and Maxwell got lucky that one juror's undisclosed life experience possibly bearing on bias served as a possible basis to hook the motion on. She lost, and now she's going to repeat those arguments on appeal. It doesn't say much about the entire body of reasons we have juries, how they get selected, why we do it this way or how, or the philosophy of crime, justice, or punishment. this is the system working as designed!
NNID: Hakkekage
I suspect that the judiciary doesn't like juries at all, because they are inconvenient, a hassle, take up a lot of their time, have to be herded like cats, and are doing a job the Judge probably feels the judge is better qualified to do.