Death penalty juries?

[awa355]

What a circus this jury selection is proving to be.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11391814

If you had to show up for a trial that could result in the death penalty if found guilty, would it affect your attitude to serving on the jury?

Not sure where I stand on this one. In kiwiland, if there was the death penalty, the culprit would likely die of old age before all the appeals had run their course.

[Akzle]

i abhor jew-ry service, or participation of any kind in the crowngaroo court system.

but if i could choose to have every crown agent in the building executed...

[jasonu]

In kiwiland, if there was the death penalty, the culprit would likely die of old age before all the appeals had run their course.

That is often the case here too.
In Oregon (where I live) Governor John Kitzhaber refuses to allow executions as it is against his personal beliefs even though it is one of the duties he as an elected official should be undertaking. Generally the state governor is the last person to either OK or stop the execution. In most cases, by the time it gets to the governors desk the case has been proven and most governors give the go ahead.

[Hitcher]

Civilised societies generally favour a system of justice over a system of revenge.

[ellipsis]

Civilised societies generally favour a system of justice over a system of revenge.

...which neither of seem to work that well...

[Moi]

Execution is final, there is no chance for innocence to be proved later due to whatever might have happened in the court. Think about the number of cases in the last few years where a person has been found guilty and jailed and later to be found to be innocence... especially in the US.

[jasonu]

Civilised societies generally favour a system of justice over a system of revenge.

If someone was proven to have murdered and raped a member of your family I am pretty sure you would develop a different attitude.

[bogan]

If someone was proven to have murdered and raped a member of your family I am pretty sure you would develop a different attitude.

In that order?

[mossy1200]

Thread has red rep written all over it.
As far as OP goes idd rather not be on the jury even if its a 100% guilty without any doubts.
Idd hate the thought of developing a change of opinion later in life about penalty.

[mashman]

...which neither of seem to work that well...

Rehabilitation or the gallows?

[jasonu]

In that order?

Sometimes...it's been known to happen.

[Akzle]

the last human hanged in nz was later pardoned.

Ironing.

[mashman]

the last human hanged in nz was later pardoned.

Ironing.

He was framed.

[Hitcher]

If someone was proven to have murdered and raped a member of your family I am pretty sure you would develop a different attitude.

Really? Why would you think that?

[mstriumph]

Civilised societies generally favour a system of justice over a system of revenge.

'Justice' is not a concept set in stone. I don't take issue with your equating the death penalty with 'revenge', although that's just your viewpoint ... however, it's a little sweeping to imply that one has to eschew execution to be considered 'civilised' (another moveable feast).

My personal opinion is that, either way, I shouldn't be forced to pay for it. Perhaps, were imprisonment less permissive, it would be more of a deterrent to potential offenders and less expensive (and therefore more attractive) to those paying for it.

It'd like to see a system where all costs involved in trial, appeals, imprisonment, etc were payable by an offender found guilty ... I'd like an account established for each prisoner where taxpayers can CHOOSE to have a small portion of their dues diverted if they disagree with the death penalty and where private individuals and other sponsors can contribute towards the offender's expenses.

Once the money runs out, the death penalty is enacted.

I had a little look for pros and cons on line ... the following is quite amusing http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000

[mstriumph]

the last human hanged in nz was later pardoned.

Ironing. He must have been thrilled.

[Hitcher]

Once the money runs out, the death penalty is enacted.

It's actually cheaper for a regime of life imprisonment then it is for a death penalty. When the state of California was pondering its financial crises a few years ago it was seriously considering revoking the death penalty as a cost saving measure. I'm not sure whether that is still a live option for them, so to speak.

Also there is no evidence anywhere that a death penalty provides any useful deterrent for the crimes for which it applies as a sentencing outcome.

[Murray]

Personally I would like to see murder 1 and murder 2 verdicts - Murder 1 undisputable - fingerprints, dna eye witnesses etc etc no doubt at all and murder 2 no witnesses dna etc but probably did it eg lundy, watson even Bain - different verdict different penalty (murder 1 Death?? but certainly a longer life sentence).

Theres probably a problem with this type of system like "any doubt not guilty" so not possible to get a murder 2 verdict but hey just a thought.

[James Deuce]

Take "Eye Witness" out and you have a deal. There is no such thing as a reliable witness. Your memory is simply repeatedly recreated based mostly on how you feel right now. Human memory is the least convincing aspect of any body of evidence.

[Swoop]

If you had to show up for a trial that could result in the death penalty if found guilty, would it affect your attitude to serving on the jury?
No problem whatsoever.
ANY cop that shows up to provide "evidence" at the trial = GUILTY! Hang the piggy!

[mstriumph]

It's actually cheaper for a regime of life imprisonment then it is for a death penalty. When the state of California was pondering its financial crises a few years ago it was seriously considering revoking the death penalty as a cost saving measure. I'm not sure whether that is still a live option for them, so to speak.

That's the lead item on the link that I posted?
My suggestion was that, instead of the state being responsible for the miscreant's upkeep, it should be by donation :)


Also there is no evidence anywhere that a death penalty provides any useful deterrent for the crimes for which it applies as a sentencing outcome.

Mmmm - but it certainly prevents recividism :msn-wink:

[bogan]

'Justice' is not a concept set in stone. I don't take issue with your equating the death penalty with 'revenge', although that's just your viewpoint ... however, it's a little sweeping to imply that one has to eschew execution to be considered 'civilised' (another moveable feast).

My personal opinion is that, either way, I shouldn't be forced to pay for it. Perhaps, were imprisonment less permissive, it would be more of a deterrent to potential offenders and less expensive (and therefore more attractive) to those paying for it.

It'd like to see a system where all costs involved in trial, appeals, imprisonment, etc were payable by an offender found guilty ... I'd like an account established for each prisoner where taxpayers can CHOOSE to have a small portion of their dues diverted if they disagree with the death penalty and where private individuals and other sponsors can contribute towards the offender's expenses.

Once the money runs out, the death penalty is enacted.

I had a little look for pros and cons on line ... the following is quite amusing http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000

So, some people get more or less justice than others depending on their popularity. That's a bit perverse isn't it?

[Banditbandit]

...which neither of seem to work that well...

If we can't decide what a justice system is supposed to achieve how can we know whether it works or not ???

[jasonu]

So, some people get more or less justice than others depending on their popularity. That's a bit perverse isn't it?

You mean like rugby players and local celebrities...

[Paul in NZ]

Civilised societies generally favour a system of justice over a system of revenge.

Justice for who? Its a punitive system applied reluctantly to discourage crime (revenge). Justice for the victims is virtually non existent.

[Ocean1]

Justice for who? Its a punitive system applied reluctantly to discourage crime (revenge). Justice for the victims is virtually non existent.

If it's function is to discourage crime then it's not revenge, is it?

The restorative justice thing has merit though. Either as well as current discouragement or apportioned as to provide same.

[Flip]

I was on a jury a few years ago. Based on my experience I have a great deal of faith in the English Jury system. If you are found guilty by a jury and you did not do it then you are really unlucky. IMHO A jury can only evaluate the evidence presented in court, nothing else. A jury does not set the sentence, the Judge does this. A jury does not make the law the goverment does this.

If I was to make one suggestion there should be a body of professional jurors. It’s a real PITA when a Juror is mentally or morally deficient.

What’s reasonable doubt? It’s higher than "on balance of probability" and lower than absolutely certain. It has to have opportunity and motive and good credible evidence that ties the crime to the defendant.

[scumdog]

In that order?

A time and a place for everything - even necrophilia...:shifty:

[scumdog]

Take "Eye Witness" out and you have a deal. There is no such thing as a reliable witness. Your memory is simply repeatedly recreated based mostly on how you feel right now. Human memory is the least convincing aspect of any body of evidence.

Tell me about it...<_<

[scumdog]

the last human hanged in nz was later pardoned.

Ironing.

sucks to be him...

[Moi]

... If I was to make one suggestion there should be a body of professional jurors...

What would you suggest are the criteria for a person to be considered a "professional juror"?

[James Deuce]

If someone was proven to have murdered and raped a member of your family I am pretty sure you would develop a different attitude.

That's the point of a justice system. Keeps personal feeling out of it.

[James Deuce]

Tell me about it...<_<

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/more-evidence-our-memory-stinks/

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/sleep-and-false-memory/

There's little rationality involved in memory recall. Brain function and structure determine how we recall an experience. This is why people with a brain injury may have no recall of an event related to that injury or their subsequent behaviour and recollection of their behaviour is at tremendous odds with the recall of other individuals who didn't suffer a brain injury and had to interface with that individual.

http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v7/n1/full/nrn1825.html

It could be possible to convince someone that they killed someone and deserve the death penalty even though they had nothing at all to do with the murder. There is a large back catalogue of executions that have involved terminating people who had nothing to do with the event. That's why most countries have given up on it. It's far too easy to use recollections and memories of events to construct a completely false premise.

At a recent accident my whole family witnessed and attended for 4 bloody hours, my wife and eldest son could not recall what happened. I was driving so my attention was focused on it. I helped the cop plot how the accident unraveled. My middle son recalled a significant detail completely differently to me, describing a 180 degree spin as a 540, while my youngest described and demonstrated the last third of the accident perfectly.

[Paul in NZ]

If it's function is to discourage crime then it's not revenge, is it?

The restorative justice thing has merit though. Either as well as current discouragement or apportioned as to provide same.

Its the state getting revenge when its all boiled down. You broke the states law, you got caught, you must be punished.

Justice noun (FAIRNESS) B2 [U] fairness in the way people are dealt with:

To be fair the origin of the word is more about the administration of the law...

Justice however implies that the victim of the crime's loss is somehow made good or compensated for...

[scumdog]

At a recent accident my whole family witnessed and attended for 4 bloody hours, my wife and eldest son could not recall what happened. I was driving so my attention was focused on it. I helped the cop plot how the accident unraveled. My middle son recalled a significant detail completely differently to me, describing a 180 degree spin as a 540, while my youngest described and demonstrated the last third of the accident perfectly.

Sums up what I have to deal with from time to time.

And everybody wants me to get it right - that is get it right from their perspective.

Not very achievable in most situations.

[oldrider]

If given the choice between trial by Jury or Judge it would be Judge every time - only one to focus on getting even with! :ar15:

[HenryDorsetCase]

What would you suggest are the criteria for a person to be considered a "professional juror"?

or Judge, as they're sometimes known.

[HenryDorsetCase]

L397TWLwrUU


breakin the law breakin the law......

also I would serve on a death penalty jury in a heartbeat.. provided I could flick the switch on Ol' Sparky and laugh maniacally as the perp fried... and scream "Its ALIVE!!!! ALIIIIIIVE a la Dr Frankenstein"

good times!

[Big Dog]

[youtube]


breakin the law breakin the law......

also I would serve on a death penalty jury in a heartbeat.. provided I could flick the switch on Ol' Sparky and laugh maniacally as the perp fried... and scream "Its ALIVE!!!! ALIIIIIIVE a la Dr Frankenstein"

good times!

I wouldn't go that far.
I wouldn't hesitate to go on a jury knowing that was a possible outcome. I would sleep well knowing the outcome if it came to that, even if he was posthumously vindicated.
It is your duty as a citizen of a country with a jury system to pop along and do the best you can with the information you are presented with. Failure to do so on any sort of scale means the juries are populated exclusively by people too stupid to get out of jury duty... this is a bias of its own and would have me quaking just a little bit should I find myself before one because it would mean that the law of averages means that the 1/2 at least will side with the govt irrespective of the evidence. That means I only have 6 people with which to find a dissenter who agrees it was possible it was not me. If I had a more intellectual jury it is likely that all 12 will attempt to reason the evidence out to a conclusion and not just believe what they are told.

Don't want to serve as juror? Move to a country that does not have them and hope you are never charged with anything.

The whole point is that a lawyer must be able to persuade a group of disinterested peers beyond doubt that the person in the dock is guilty while a second lawyer does their best to argue for the defendant. Having trained and professional jurors means they will dish out the same biases as they were taught to all comers all day long.
The short comings of this system are many including that people are often persuaded by the personalities rather than the facts and because humans are involved errors are made.
There are an awful lot of people wrongly convicted if you are to believe the convicts.
I don't recall a whole lot of claims by defendants they were wrongfully found innocent, but I reckon that number if it could be measured would be far higher than the number of persons found guilty when they were not.
No system is perfect but it works pretty well as a whole.
I would like to see longer sentences for violent crime, perhaps with the min non parole remaining the same so that we can at least detain those with no intent to reform for longer. I like the idea of life means life, but with parole as possibility for those who are appropriately reformed because it is just as big a waste when an offender is released because they could be detained no longer as it is when a convict reforms from a one off event and changes as a person only to know they still have 15 years to go. Especially when that was a young man or woman who made an error in judgement they would not normally make and they will now be ejected into the world as a 40 something who has never held a job and the only thing on their C.V is a conviction for a violent crime they perhaps only participated in because of peer pressure they were to weak to overcome.

Yes it is a pretty complex question. There are no easy answers.
But there do have to be answers and men and women who stand up to do their duty when called to provide the answers.

[Big Dog]

I also think that if a convict works in prison or otherwise receives an income that they should be required to be taxed by an extra 1/3 to be returned to the victims or their heirs and that the relative restitution to the victims should be a factor in parole.
e.g millionaires would have to pay more in restitution than those with less ability to pay.

I can hear all the millionaires on here lighting the torches about how they should not have to pay more, perhaps, but it is also less skin off your nose to pay 100k in restitution than it is for a pauper to pay 10k.

[Ocean1]

Its the state getting revenge when its all boiled down. You broke the states law, you got caught, you must be punished.

I don't agree, revenge implies a personal grudge. Nor does the state agree, what you infer is "revenge" they call "correction".

Which is bullshit, of course, but most people seem to be OK with "deterrent".


Justice noun (FAIRNESS) B2 [U] fairness in the way people are dealt with:

To be fair the origin of the word is more about the administration of the law...

Justice however implies that the victim of the crime's loss is somehow made good or compensated for...

It probably does, and I'd say most people would be happy to require those responsible for another's personal loss to make good. But they're usually disinclined to do so, probably for similar reasons that caused them to cause the loss in the first place. I'd personally be OK with a modicum of coercion to achieve those ends, but those of a more squeamish disposition probably wouldn't. They did away with debtor's prisons, maybe we should bring 'em back, but this time with the opportunity for the bad dudes to actually earn the required compensation. And rot there until they do.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Theres a really good current example being heard presently. Arthur Taylor is suing the gubblemunt (or J Kizzle) or someone and the question is that of should prisoners be allowed to vote? Up until 2010, if you were serving 3 years or less, you could vote. Paul Quinn the Nazional sponsor of the private members bill which revoked that right for those people was upfront this morning "Fuck em", he said "if they are in the big house they forfeit their rights as citizens".

Fair enough you might think, but the way the Nazionals went about it was interesting: it passed with a two vote majority. Taylor's point is that a basic change to the enfranchisement or otherwise of a sector of the populace should be (and in his view was) entrenched: that is, a 75% majority of the Parliament required to change it. Obviously that did not happen here.

Also there is some noise about J Kizzle and his candidacy or something.

So, the question is, is that disenfranchisement anything other than a little vindictive kick in the guts? I suggest that is all it is... it must only be a disincentive for rehabilitation.

What if they decided (to quote one of the commentators whose name I forget) that "Meh, no more wimminz votes" or "Meh, people from Southland: yeah, no votes for them."

The problem is that the case is bought by Arthur Taylor who the media insist on describing as a career criminal. If the medium is the message, then the message bearer has a lot about how the message is perceived: so he is stuffed from the start.

[Ocean1]

Paul Quinn the Nazional sponsor of the private members bill which revoked that right for those people was upfront this morning "Fuck em", he said "if they are in the big house they forfeit their rights as citizens".

I'm with him, they're the ones that decided society's rules didn't apply to them.

Fuck 'em. Make it so.

Also, who wants criminals shaping the future of our society?

Fuck 'em.

What's more I'd revoke the right to vote until they'd made good restitution to their victims.

Again: Fuck 'em.

[unstuck]

Theres a really good current example being heard presently. Arthur Taylor is suing the gubblemunt (or J Kizzle) or someone and the question is that of should prisoners be allowed to vote? Up until 2010, if you were serving 3 years or less, you could vote. Paul Quinn the Nazional sponsor of the private members bill which revoked that right for those people was upfront this morning "Fuck em", he said "if they are in the big house they forfeit their rights as citizens".

Fair enough you might think, but the way the Nazionals went about it was interesting: it passed with a two vote majority. Taylor's point is that a basic change to the enfranchisement or otherwise of a sector of the populace should be (and in his view was) entrenched: that is, a 75% majority of the Parliament required to change it. Obviously that did not happen here.

Also there is some noise about J Kizzle and his candidacy or something.

So, the question is, is that disenfranchisement anything other than a little vindictive kick in the guts? I suggest that is all it is... it must only be a disincentive for rehabilitation.

What if they decided (to quote one of the commentators whose name I forget) that "Meh, no more wimminz votes" or "Meh, people from Southland: yeah, no votes for them."

The problem is that the case is bought by Arthur Taylor who the media insist on describing as a career criminal. If the medium is the message, then the message bearer has a lot about how the message is perceived: so he is stuffed from the start.

Old "boy" still stirring shit then. He always did fancy himself a bit of a lawyer.:devil2:

[unstuck]

Also, who wants criminals shaping the future of our society?



Criminals have been ruling the plebs for fucking centuries, every government is full of criminals. Fuck em.:Punk:

[Akzle]

im amazed how much faith you old white fucks maintain in the failed/ing system.

Still, keeps you safe from darkies eh.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Old "boy" still stirring shit then. He always did fancy himself a bit of a lawyer.:devil2:

He would almost certainly be a better lawyer than me......

[HenryDorsetCase]

im amazed how much faith you old white fucks maintain in the failed/ing system.

Still, keeps you safe from darkies eh.

Hey white boy what you doing uptown?

[HenryDorsetCase]

I'm with him, they're the ones that decided society's rules didn't apply to them.

Fuck 'em. Make it so.

Also, who wants criminals shaping the future of our society?

Fuck 'em.

What's more I'd revoke the right to vote until they'd made good restitution to their victims.

Again: Fuck 'em.

and the process?

also the wimminz and the Southlanders?

I have no axe to grind here really - I was just interested in that story.

[Ocean1]

and the process?

also the wimminz and the Southlanders?

I have no axe to grind here really - I was just interested in that story.

Lock the bastards up until they've reimbursed the victims. Give 'em the means to do so. Not difficult.

If wimmin get any say we wouldn't get to the above situation, no votes for wimmin. Southlanders are culcherly superior from the get-go, their vote counts double.

Me neither. I just don't see the point in any system that fails to "correct" the perps and reimburse the victims. I see your local bar has a bit of a tiff on atm re shortfall in restoritititive justice budget. Where that means the perp and the victim having a wee supervised, (and in the supervisor's case commercially reimbursed) chat I don't see the point, most victims don't want to see the perp, they want him to pay what he owes them as soon as possible.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Lock the bastards up until they've reimbursed the victims. Give 'em the means to do so. Not difficult.

If wimmin get any say we wouldn't get to the above situation, no votes for wimmin. Southlanders are culcherly superior from the get-go, their vote counts double.

Me neither. I just don't see the point in any system that fails to "correct" the perps and reimburse the victims. I see your local bar has a bit of a tiff on atm re shortfall in restoritititive justice budget. Where that means the perp and the victim having a wee supervised, (and in the supervisor's case commercially reimbursed) chat I don't see the point, most victims don't want to see the perp, they want him to pay what he owes them as soon as possible.

one of my friends is a criminal lawyer (not in the BETTER CALL SAUL sense) and you should hear him going on about restorative justice.

the "reimburse the victim" thing is good in theory: how does it work in practice. I am killed by a drunk fuckwit, his fault. Does he become SWMBO's indentured servant for the rest of his life? forfeit his worldlys?

what about (say) Ed Sullivan after SCF? How does he reimburse his victims? who are they? SCF investors? the taxpayers who bailed SCF?

I mean I totally get the attraction of "an eye for an eye" and I have a file at present which screams out for it (because the guy on the other side is an utter cunt) but I dunno. I will say I have no problem whatever with the death penalty, judiciously* applied.


*see what I did there?

[BMWST?]

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/more-evidence-our-memory-stinks/

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/sleep-and-false-memory/

There's little rationality involved in memory recall. Brain function and structure determine how we recall an experience. This is why people with a brain injury may have no recall of an event related to that injury or their subsequent behaviour and recollection of their behaviour is at tremendous odds with the recall of other individuals who didn't suffer a brain injury and had to interface with that individual.

http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v7/n1/full/nrn1825.html

It could be possible to convince someone that they killed someone and deserve the death penalty even though they had nothing at all to do with the murder. There is a large back catalogue of executions that have involved terminating people who had nothing to do with the event. That's why most countries have given up on it. It's far too easy to use recollections and memories of events to construct a completely false premise.

At a recent accident my whole family witnessed and attended for 4 bloody hours, my wife and eldest son could not recall what happened. I was driving so my attention was focused on it. I helped the cop plot how the accident unraveled. My middle son recalled a significant detail completely differently to me, describing a 180 degree spin as a 540, while my youngest described and demonstrated the last third of the accident perfectly.
you are a participant in the event.Your recollection will be suspect.A bystander or impartial observer will have a much clearer idea of what happend.Thats a witness.And if there are two or three witnesses i say their recollections of the event are very important.To discount the value of witnesses based on that event is not sound

[mstriumph]

So, some people get more or less justice than others depending on their popularity. That's a bit perverse isn't it?

it isn't 'justice' that's the point ... just a debate about whether people who don't wish to support them should be forced to do so

anyway, what's your problem with popular folk getting more of life's pie than everyone else? that's the way the rest of the world works, isn't it?

[Hitcher]

just a debate about whether people who don't wish to support them should be forced to do so

Welcome to life in a democracy. We haven't got kids, but we still pay taxes to educate and provide health services for them. We don't own dogs, but our rates still subsidise council services for those who do. We don't use the city library service but still fund that. Private contractors take our rubbish away, but we still fund the council service. I don't like the Green Party but my taxes still pay for their "elected" members and parliamentary entourage. And so it goes.

Eleanor Catton doesn't like our government, but a majority of voting New Zealanders do. Some people need to either wake up and smell the coffee, or move to Guatemala.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Welcome to life in a democracy. We haven't got kids, but we still pay taxes to educate and provide health services for them. We don't own dogs, but our rates still subsidise council services for those who do. We don't use the city library service but still fund that. Private contractors take our rubbish away, but we still fund the council service. I don't like the Green Party but my taxes still pay for their "elected" members and parliamentary entourage. And so it goes.

Eleanor Catton doesn't like our government, but a majority of voting New Zealanders do. Some people need to either wake up and smell the coffee, or move to Guatemala.

the coffee is good in Guatemala, so you would be able to smell it pretty well there, Dr Ropata.

also why the sneer quotes around the Greens "elected" members? Shirley if you are sneering at Parliamentarians it should be all of them, or none?

[Hitcher]

the coffee is good in Guatemala, so you would be able to smell it pretty well there, Dr Ropata.
It is sometime good to see that sarcasm doesn't fall on the ears of the deaf.


also why the sneer quotes around the Greens "elected" members? Shirley if you are sneering at Parliamentarians it should be all of them, or none?

Why the sneer quotes? Because none of the Green's "elected" members have been chosen by members of the general electorate. They are all in Parliament because they coat-tailed on a party vote. Call me old-fashioned but I believe that elected members should be individually accountable to an electorate, not because they have been chosen by a party machine.

[Flip]

What would you suggest are the criteria for a person to be considered a "professional juror"?

The existing system mostly nets Jurers who are too stupid to get off or who are unemployed for whatever reason. What the courts need is sensible middle class educated people.

Jurers from a pre approved list:
Being properly paid for a start.
Properly trained.
People whose employer will give them the time off.
High EQ, ie, the ability to make a reasonable decision.
High IQ, ie the ability to track a complex case.
Middle of the road political views.
No criminal activity or associations.

[Ocean1]

one of my friends is a criminal lawyer (not in the BETTER CALL SAUL sense) and you should hear him going on about restorative justice.

the "reimburse the victim" thing is good in theory: how does it work in practice. I am killed by a drunk fuckwit, his fault. Does he become SWMBO's indentured servant for the rest of his life? forfeit his worldlys?

what about (say) Ed Sullivan after SCF? How does he reimburse his victims? who are they? SCF investors? the taxpayers who bailed SCF?

I mean I totally get the attraction of "an eye for an eye" and I have a file at present which screams out for it (because the guy on the other side is an utter cunt) but I dunno. I will say I have no problem whatever with the death penalty, judiciously* applied.


*see what I did there?

Oh I get the bit where some few victims are complicit in the effect the perp had on them. Few being the key, there. But it's really a simple analysis innit? If the perp acted outside the law and damaged someone or left them significantly worse for wear then they should reimburse them.

If Mr Sullivan acted within the law but outside of commonly held ethical expectations then you don't have a legal issue. If he acted outside the law then certainly divide his net worth amongst his victims and perhaps require him to contribute further. Drunk fuckwit likewise.

I don't care for the eye for eye thing, no crime excuses more of the same in retaliation. So I don't think we orta lock up or kill perps because they "deserve" it as some form of punishment. I think we orta lock them up or kill them to prevent them doing the same thing again.

And let's face it, by the time they come to be eligible for either they've had multiple chances to change their behaviour and haven't, so the risk is always high enough to justify, (see that?) the sentence.

Reserved and ultimately just system, eh?. All we're asking is that, like the rest of us they leave society not substantially worse off for their presence.

A requirement that covers crime otherwise often overlooked. Like Miley Cyrus, Walk shorts, The Bay City Rollers, etc.

[TheDemonLord]

The existing system mostly nets Jurers who are too stupid to get off or who are unemployed for whatever reason. What the courts need is sensible middle class educated people.

Jurers from a pre approved list:
Being properly paid for a start.
Properly trained.
People whose employer will give them the time off.
High EQ, ie, the ability to make a reasonable decision.
High IQ, ie the ability to track a complex case.
Middle of the road political views.
No criminal activity or associations.

And when you find someone that fits all of the above - you may wish to capture a White Unicorn too.

[Ocean1]

And when you find someone that fits all of the above - you may wish to capture a White Unicorn too.

Many societies contained the concept of professional jurors. The Greeks for one.

And it's perfectly reasonable to expect that appropriate training would make them far more reliable in terms of observation and accuracy of recall.

[Flip]

And when you find someone that fits all of the above - you may wish to capture a White Unicorn too.

Not really, I would liken them to being JP's.

[mstriumph]

Welcome to life in a democracy. ............

Thank you
Provided we agree that the emphasis is on the second syllable :confused:

[TheDemonLord]

Okay, I'll bite


Not really, I would liken them to being JP's.


Many societies contained the concept of professional jurors. The Greeks for one.

And it's perfectly reasonable to expect that appropriate training would make them far more reliable in terms of observation and accuracy of recall.

Wouldn't that however completely defeat the purpose of a Jury? The role of the Jury is to have everyday people look at the evidence. Not Lawyers, or Judges or anyone professionally connected to the Legal system.

Things like Jury Aquittals (where the Jury aquits someone, not on the weight of the evidence, but in the belief that the person should not be punished for commiting an illegal act due to circumstances)

[Swoop]

...and the question is that of should prisoners be allowed to vote?
Perhaps the methodology was wrong?

If gubbinment wishes to have an easier process, they just need to say "all prisoners may vote".
Then set up the polling booth outside the prison's main gate for them to use. If they can get to it.

[Flip]

Okay, I'll bite





Wouldn't that however completely defeat the purpose of a Jury? The role of the Jury is to have everyday people look at the evidence. Not Lawyers, or Judges or anyone professionally connected to the Legal system.

Things like Jury Aquittals (where the Jury aquits someone, not on the weight of the evidence, but in the belief that the person should not be punished for commiting an illegal act due to circumstances)

The problem is many cases can go on for months and are legally complex. Its entirely appropiate for professional people to sit on these cases. I liken being an approved jourer to other forms of professional community servive such as being a JP, sitting on a community board or even being a Rotary member. The problem is many juries have to drag the bottom of the perverbial social barrell. Its certanly not wise to have unemployed and probably uneducated people on say a complex tax-fraud case, but I suspect it is what happens.

[TheDemonLord]

The problem is many cases can go on for months and are legally complex. Its entirely appropiate for professional people to sit on these cases. I liken being an approved jourer to other forms of professional community servive such as being a JP, sitting on a community board or even being a Rotary member. The problem is many juries have to drag the bottom of the perverbial social barrell. Its certanly not wise to have unemployed and probably uneducated people on say a complex tax-fraud case, but I suspect it is what happens.

Bearing in mind I agree with the principle of what you are saying, Professional people unfortunately have professional jobs, that can't have people out of the office for that length of time.

so the only option would be to have someone as a fulltime Juror - but that would mean that they aren't separate from the Legal system (and so are biased towards the legal viewpoint)

but as I said - it would be nice to have well educated people on the Jury

[mashman]

Don't kill people in jail for murder, because they might be innocent.

Don't give people the right to vote, because they're in prison and therefore must be guilty.

http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/files/legacy.images/smosh-pit/092010/extreme-ironing-hang-glide.jpg

[korimako1]

Bearing in mind I agree with the principle of what you are saying, Professional people unfortunately have professional jobs, that can't have people out of the office for that length of time.

so the only option would be to have someone as a fulltime Juror - but that would mean that they aren't separate from the Legal system (and so are biased towards the legal viewpoint)

but as I said - it would be nice to have well educated people on the Jury

There is a doosy coming up, I hope he has educated people on the jury

[Swoop]

The problem is many juries have to drag the bottom of the perverbial social barrell. Its certanly not wise to have unemployed and probably uneducated people on say a complex tax-fraud case, but I suspect it is what happens.
From what I've witnessed from being on quite a few juries, is that the entire communal sea is dredged for jurors and not just "the bottom".

If you attempt to have a "pool" of people, you will only end up with their own areas of prejudice. And influence...

There are a lot of times when common sense and street-wise experience means a LOT more than some twat who isn't "scum".

[Akzle]

And when you find someone that fits all of the above - you may wish to capture a White Unicorn too.

yeah, not a black one, they'll nick your car.

[Akzle]

http://www.sccollege.edu/Faculty/EHovanitz/PublishingImages/2003ExtremeIroning.jpg. .