Death penalty juries?

[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.

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/i...memory-stinks/

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/i...-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...l/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.