User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 40

  1. #11
    No moss growing on me Giggly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    iSFj
    Enneagram
    2 sx/so
    Posts
    9,666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikamickmac View Post
    No offence taken....my biggest fear in life (and it's a real fear) is losing my children, and my youngest son is/was the same age as that unfortunate child
    Some people are better able to do it than others, which is why they have jury selection.

  2. #12
    Senior Member King sns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    6,747

    Default

    In this case, my first thought was not about whether the jury should be exposed, but if the jury was well equipped to handle the case.... I would think that most regular people/ general population with no training in law or psychology would think more about the cruelty of the act itself then the intentions of the dad, regardless of the facts presented to them. It's an emotional case, easy to sway. I was always a little sketched out with trial by jury.

    (Re: the point of the OP- it's a good point... I don't know, that wouldn't be my first thought, people are exposed to this stuff all the time on the news- but jury duty is mandatory- I wonder if you could just opt. out because of your mental status. It's like some people can't go to war- and others- maybe shouldn't do jury duty in a case like this.) I'm not a law girl and no nothing of the rules of jury duty so I'm just speculating.

    Oh! Edit: I completely forgot to add that I just saw a show on trial by jury yesterday- I didn't see the whole thing, just a blurb. It was some lady talking about the personalities of the jury and the thoughts sounded really interesting but I had to get back to work. She mentioned that she thought trial by jury, for whatever reason, ends up working out in almost every case, but there are a few where the personality of the lawyer and the personalities of the jury swayed everyone the wrong way or something.
    06/13 10:51:03 five sounds: you!!!
    06/13 10:51:08 shortnsweet: no you!!
    06/13 10:51:12 shortnsweet: go do your things and my things too!
    06/13 10:51:23 five sounds: oh hell naw
    06/13 10:51:55 shortnsweet: !!!!
    06/13 10:51:57 shortnsweet: (cries)
    06/13 10:52:19 RiftsWRX: You two are like furbies stuck in a shoe box

    My Nohari
    My Johari
    by sns.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    I didn't expect this angle. Not good for the jury? Sorry, but dealing with stuff like this is part of your duty as a member of society.

    I don't trust juries. Most people are uninformed/uneducated/etc. That said, putting the decision in the hands of a single individual, no matter how educated or informed they might be, is also concerning. If I were on trial, I'd rather have a panel of judges make the decision, like the Supreme Court.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  4. #14
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I didn't expect this angle. Not good for the jury? Sorry, but dealing with stuff like this is part of your duty as a member of society.

    I don't trust juries. Most people are uninformed/uneducated/etc. That said, putting the decision in the hands of a single individual, no matter how educated or informed they might be, is also concerning. If I were on trial, I'd rather have a panel of judges make the decision, like the Supreme Court.
    Well, yes, and that's how much inquisitorial systems do it. You defend yourself before a panel.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  5. #15
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    oh, I didn't expect that angle. I think it is often a bad thing too, but not because it's unfair to the jury members (although that's an interesting point). It's not fair to the accused. The jury is basically just a tool for the lawyers to play around with. Often uneducated, emotional, unintelligent, etc. A panel of judges or other trained people would be more fair.
    Quote Originally Posted by Giggly View Post
    Some people are better able to do it than others, which is why they have jury selection.
    Jury selection has nothing to do with identifying able jurors, and everything to do with the opposing sides each trying to stack the deck in their favor. Lawyers seem to favor jurors who are uneducated, emotional, and unintelligent, in the hopes of being able to sway them with emotional arguments. People with technical backgrounds, who are trained in objective analysis and critical thinking, are routinely excluded. It does not help that so many people of all backgrounds do their best to avoid jury duty. This simply limits the pool of available jurors.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  6. #16
    No moss growing on me Giggly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    iSFj
    Enneagram
    2 sx/so
    Posts
    9,666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Jury selection has nothing to do with identifying able jurors, and everything to do with the opposing sides each trying to stack the deck in their favor. Lawyers seem to favor jurors who are uneducated, emotional, and unintelligent, in the hopes of being able to sway them with emotional arguments. People with technical backgrounds, who are trained in objective analysis and critical thinking, are routinely excluded. It does not help that so many people of all backgrounds do their best to avoid jury duty. This simply limits the pool of available jurors.
    This is a very irritating statement. How do you know that? Are you lawyer? 1) I'm emotional and I've been disqualified before. and 2) There are strict rules that jurors must follow and know-it-all smarty pants probably won't follow those rules because they think they know everything already.

  7. #17
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    To borrow a bit from Winston Churchill

    Trial by jury is the worst form of justice except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  8. #18
    RETIRED CzeCze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    GONE
    Posts
    9,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    oh, I didn't expect that angle. I think it is often a bad thing too, but not because it's unfair to the jury members (although that's an interesting point). It's not fair to the accused. The jury is basically just a tool for the lawyers to play around with. Often uneducated, emotional, unintelligent, etc. A panel of judges or other trained people would be more fair.
    hahaha. You beat me to the first part. I was not expecting the "unfair to jurors" part. I think from the pov of citizens it's a neat responsibility.

    However the second part is what a lot of people in countries without a jury system think. Having "peers" on a jury puts a human element to a case and can add a mercy factor that judges are not supposed to care about. Laws are nothing without interpretation and remembering their intent. Having a jury technically grounds the law in modern mores and localizes it to fit society as represented by the jury. So if a group of peers says "we feel bad for this woman who killed her abusive child molesting husband and are unsympathetic to the husband" they will either have a hung trial or have a verdict that reflects that.
    Human illogic was one the reasons the jury system was put into place to make things "fairer".

    Maybe. Sorta.

    Would having only judges be fairer? Well they are certainly trained to be familiar with the law and know they are supposed to be impartial. Judges are also human though. I doubt in the Jim Crow south if it mattered which biased humans determined verdicts or law, a jury of "peers" or judges.

    From the POV of a defendant they have the right to choose a jury case or not once it gets to the "serious leagues"
    “If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.” ― Oscar Wilde

    "I'm outtie 5000" ― Romulux

    Johari/Nohari

  9. #19
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Giggly View Post
    This is a very irritating statement. How do you know that? Are you lawyer? 1) I'm emotional and I've been disqualified before. and 2) There are strict rules that jurors must follow and know-it-all smarty pants probably won't follow those rules because they think they know everything already.
    And this is a very ignorant statement. "Knowing it all" is not the same thing as being able to employ objective analysis, or resist emotional arguments. Jurors of any inclination will be replaced by alternates if they do not follow the rules.

    The people I am describing are not disqualified because of the degree of emotion they display during jury selection. It is strictly on the basis of occupation or educational background. I work in a research organization where most of my colleagues are scientists and engineers. Though many have been summoned to appear for jury duty, the only one actually seated on a jury was a supervisor who gave his occupation as "manager" rather than electrical engineer, his actual field. I have heard similar reports from colleagues in other research organizations, so while anecdotal, I consider the evidence adequate to support my statement. I am told health care workers are similarly excluded, especially if the trial involves a medical issue.

    The process is flawed, though, because the correlations are not perfect. There are plenty of rational, objective people who are not in technical fields, and some in those fields are not that rational and objective. Rejecting any broad category of people is misguided and just limits the jury pool to no purpose.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  10. #20
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikamickmac View Post
    Then I thought "Is our justice system really so important that we need to subject so many innocent people to such horror? Couldn't justice have been served without impacting so many innocent lives?"
    Um, what? I think they'll be okay...

    Jury systems may be flawed, but it's just a really, really bad idea to have people connected directly to state institutions deciding on a case. There's more room for direct political and economic agendas to fuck everything up.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

Similar Threads

  1. Trial By Jury and the Power of Conformity
    By Epiphany in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-24-2013, 12:16 AM
  2. Is democracy always a good thing?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 01-03-2012, 08:15 PM
  3. Is personal responsiblity always a good thing?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-29-2011, 05:36 PM
  4. [INTP] Is self-denial always a bad thing?
    By Ezra in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-15-2008, 02:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO