Carjacker chased down and killed by parents/mob in Philadelphia

Win, your cynical attitude about our entire system of justice is horrifying, to put it mildly. Just to answer part of what you said, no, the jury doesn't consist of 12 people who were not smart enough to get out of jury duty. It is very easy to get out of jury duty if one wants to. The one time I was on a jury, in a car theft case, I found it an inspiring experience. My fellow jurors were serious and a little bit awed to be in that jury box, not an ignorant, brutal mob such as you seem to be advocating, but people who were glad to be part of the process. We took the case very seriously. The guy was obviously guilty, and we found him guilty in an hour or less. He did not get away with his crime.

The prosecutor and the defense attorney likewise took their jobs seriously. They explained everything to us so that it would be perfectly clear, and answered any questions. After the trial ended, they called us in to a meeting and asked us what factors led us to a guilty verdict. They seemed genuinely interested in learning from the experience.

So no, we didn't form an outraged mob to tear a car thief limb from limb, as you would probably have preferred, Win. Sorry, but I prefer to live in a country that has advanced beyond the cave man days.
 
win231 said:
We use a jury system in this country because it's the cheapest option; not the best option. I compared the ignorance of people on a jury to the complaint about an ignorant mob. The mob provided justice & also prevented the deaths of 2 children. Jurors are "sworn to consider all the evidence" etc. but they are not legal experts & have their own prejudices & thoughts about what justice is. That's why a good defense attorney can confuse them & that's why they get it wrong so many times.
That's where the quote comes from: "A jury consists of 12 people who were not smart enough to get out of jury duty."
Click to expand...

First off, I think you grossly underestimate and demean your fellow citizens who serve on juries.

And what would your idea of the "best option" be? Just throw the accused off a roof or stick them in prison and get it over with, on the assumption that if you are accused of a crime, you must be guilty? Or maybe let the king decide? Or maybe professional jurors who would be even more susceptible to personal prejudices and, BTW, to bribes and special interests? Or just let the arresting officers decide? Or better yet go out in the streets and recruit a mob of angry people and give 'em all clubs and tell 'em to have at it?

Our jury system is based on the British system, in place for hundreds of years. It isn't the cheapest option -- actually a jury trial is quite an expensive undertaking -- and that is not why it is used. It is used in an effort to guarantee that all defendants get due process and a fair trial, a basic tenet of our society. The system is not perfect, but it is the best there is.
 

Sunny said:
Win, your cynical attitude about our entire system of justice is horrifying, to put it mildly. Just to answer part of what you said, no, the jury doesn't consist of 12 people who were not smart enough to get out of jury duty. It is very easy to get out of jury duty if one wants to. The one time I was on a jury, in a car theft case, I found it an inspiring experience. My fellow jurors were serious and a little bit awed to be in that jury box, not an ignorant, brutal mob such as you seem to be advocating, but people who were glad to be part of the process. We took the case very seriously. The guy was obviously guilty, and we found him guilty in an hour or less. He did not get away with his crime.

The prosecutor and the defense attorney likewise took their jobs seriously. They explained everything to us so that it would be perfectly clear, and answered any questions. After the trial ended, they called us in to a meeting and asked us what factors led us to a guilty verdict. They seemed genuinely interested in learning from the experience.

So no, we didn't form an outraged mob to tear a car thief limb from limb, as you would probably have preferred, Win. Sorry, but I prefer to live in a country that has advanced beyond the cave man days.
Click to expand...

Yeah....and the moronic jurors in Simi Valley who found those four douchebag cops who pounded on Rodney King & got him 4 million dollars & all charges dropped instead of a 3rd strike 20-year sentence were also serious & intelligent. The only thing they took seriously was their racism & prejudice - like the four cops.
You can look at things through Rose-Colored Glasses all you want. I prefer reality. When I want fantasy, I go to Disneyland.
 
rgp said:
I never said that, I said I was WRONG stating it as i did. Please do not put words in my mouth.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. To wit:
"But then ... broaden your thinking a bit. If my plan were implemented .... there would be no TP'ing or egging to begin with .... "
You put the words in your own mouth!
 
Win, of course juries deliver verdicts that are "wrong" sometimes. Or verdicts with which YOU may not agree. So what? Does that mean that the entire jury system is nonsense, and we'd be better off leaving it to a brutal mob of ignoramuses with their adrenaline running? Not to mention the alcohol that might be pickling their brains? Just return to (as I said before) cave man "justice?"

Holly, I rarely disagree with you, but I do on this subject. Calling people who want a system of due process, rather than mob rule, "snowflakes" means you consider our Founding Fathers snowflakes, plus those who implemented it in your country much earlier. That system of law is a large part of what makes our two countries desirable places to live. In spite of its flaws, and the fact that sometimes juries might make dumb decisions, I'll go along with the snowflake system.

Your very own Churchill famously said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." The same could be said of western world jiurisprudence.

Trade, I agree with your assessment of the younger generation vs. the old curmudgeons. In general, the young folks are a lot kinder, not carrying all the baggage of those brought up in the "good old days." People who were severely punished in their own youth tend to perpetuate the punishment on others, sad to say.
 
treeguy64 said:
Uh, no. To wit:
"But then ... broaden your thinking a bit. If my plan were implemented .... there would be no TP'ing or egging to begin with .... "
You put the words in your own mouth!
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I put a :) at the end which you conveniently dropped from your quote. If you are going to quote me .... quote me completely.
 
Too many angry people walking around doing impulsive things. A mob of this type is terror. This is not why we have laws. It's why we have courts.
911 said:
Obviously, here in Pennsylvania, the culprit would have been charged with felony theft and kidnapping. Other charges could have been brought, but the D.A. would have decided what, if any, additional charges would have been added to the list. I can think of a few.

Mob justice just can’t or shouldn’t prevail. However, if the mob had a reasonable expectation that the children’s lives were in jeopardy, then the D.A. has a tough call.

Still the group could have held onto him and handed him over to authorities in this case. Instead they decided to act like a band of lower primates and beat the man to death. Nope. It's a crime. Sorry.
Click to expand...
 
Judycat said:
Too many angry people walking around doing impulsive things. A mob of this type is terror. This is not why we have laws. It's why we have courts.
Click to expand...

911,
"Still the group could have held onto him and handed him over to authorities in this case. Instead they decided to act like a band of lower primates and beat the man to death. Nope. It's a crime. Sorry."
The only way the group could have held onto him was if he didn't put up a struggle. I'm assuming you weren't there, so you don't know what occurred.
 
Sunny said:
Win, of course juries deliver verdicts that are "wrong" sometimes. Or verdicts with which YOU may not agree. So what? Does that mean that the entire jury system is nonsense, and we'd be better off leaving it to a brutal mob of ignoramuses with their adrenaline running? Not to mention the alcohol that might be pickling their brains? Just return to (as I said before) cave man "justice?"

Holly, I rarely disagree with you, but I do on this subject. Calling people who want a system of due process, rather than mob rule, "snowflakes" means you consider our Founding Fathers snowflakes, plus those who implemented it in your country much earlier. That system of law is a large part of what makes our two countries desirable places to live. In spite of its flaws, and the fact that sometimes juries might make dumb decisions, I'll go along with the snowflake system.

Your very own Churchill famously said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." The same could be said of western world jiurisprudence.

Trade, I agree with your assessment of the younger generation vs. the old curmudgeons. In general, the young folks are a lot kinder, not carrying all the baggage of those brought up in the "good old days." People who were severely punished in their own youth tend to perpetuate the punishment on others, sad to say.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this Sunny.. and all your other comments on this subject... but I'm sticking by my ''snowflake comment'' that's my own personal opinion, and I've witnessed it in action and believe it can only get worse.....
 
Ugh! I accidently hit the Post button, then tried to edit and then delete my above comment. It didn't work. I tried like 3 or 4 times to rid this thread of it, and it still showed up. Blah. Please ignore my post, I don't know WTH I'm talking about.
 
Keep in mind, no defendant has to have a trial by jury. Any defendant may opt for a bench trial, whereby only the judge decides guilty or not guilty. The constitution does not guarantee anyone of a trial by their peers, only a trial by jury, if so desired.

Maybe 10 years ago, there was a lot of talk about having professional juries made up of former judges, attorneys and Prosecutors. It would definitely add expenses to the cost of the trial, but the idea is to get it right and maybe stop this appeal after appeal merry-go-round.
 
911 said:
Keep in mind, no defendant has to have a trial by jury. Any defendant may opt for a bench trial, whereby only the judge decides guilty or not guilty. The constitution does not guarantee anyone of a trial by their peers, only a trial by jury, if so desired.

Maybe 10 years ago, there was a lot of talk about having professional juries made up of former judges, attorneys and Prosecutors. It would definitely add expenses to the cost of the trial, but the idea is to get it right and maybe stop this appeal after appeal merry-go-round.
Click to expand...

Well, any defense attorney who is worth his fee would always request a jury trial. He knows his client will fare better with 12 ignorant people than one intelligent judge.
And, I would be in favor of Professional Jurors. Anything is better than the pathetic joke we have now.
 
win231 said:
Well, any defense attorney who is worth his fee would always request a jury trial. He knows his client will fare better with 12 ignorant people than one intelligent judge.
And, I would be in favor of Professional Jurors. Anything is better than the pathetic joke we have now.
Click to expand...
And lest we forget; not all judges are intelligent. :D They are just as human as the rest of us.
 
win231 said:
Well, any defense attorney who is worth his fee would always request a jury trial. He knows his client will fare better with 12 ignorant people than one intelligent judge.
And, I would be in favor of Professional Jurors. Anything is better than the pathetic joke we have now.
Click to expand...

I would like to point out that you are using "intelligent" and "ignorant" as if they were the opposite of each other. They are not.

"Intelligence" is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge.

"Ignorance" is simply the lack of knowledge.

A jury who is "ignorant" of the law will be instructed by the judge on the law that applies to the case before it.

A judge is pretty intelligent or he wouldn't be where he/she is -- having had to get through law school (acquiring knowledge), passing the bar and practicing law (applying said knowledge).
 
Without going back through my journal, I will just make the statement that I have given testimony in several trials. In my own opinion, I don’t think juries have always gotten the verdict correct. Not because it wasn’t the verdict that I wanted, but because I didn’t think they applied the judge’s instructions properly.

In civil cases, I have noticed that the plaintiffs have sometimes, (a lot of times), done better by going with a bench trial, instead of a jury trial. I have also noticed that if a case is tried in a county that is more liberal, the jury awards have been larger. In criminal trials that were tried in liberal counties the sentences have been about equal to conservative counties.

Juries are a lot of times confused by a judge’s instructions and also by laws, even when explained. Juries have handed notes to judges asking to clarify a law or an instruction. Going back to the Casey Anthony case, IMO, how she walked away without being found guilty of at least negligence.

Sometimes, it all comes down to a jury’s interpretation of “reasonable doubt.” They sometimes take that as meaning “all doubt.” It’s really been a sticking point with a lot of juries and someone needs to come up with a better phrase or terminology that the normal person can better understand.
 
win231 said:
Well, any defense attorney who is worth his fee would always request a jury trial. He knows his client will fare better with 12 ignorant people than one intelligent judge.
And, I would be in favor of Professional Jurors. Anything is better than the pathetic joke we have now.
Click to expand...

Not arguing with you ... as i do not know. But I have heard some law professionals say a person is better off with a judge, than a jury. Due to the fact that the judge purportedly has the ability to keep emotion out of their decision ? Where juries are prone to be much more emotional in their decisions. Some even say , a jury decision is almost always emotional. Because they have no professional knowledge of the law, beyond the judges instructions.

This is why in the case of a black/white or male/female defendant , they try to seat a balanced jury, in the case of a jury trial.
 
rgp said:
Not arguing with you ... as i do not know. But I have heard some law professionals say a person is better off with a judge, than a jury. Due to the fact that the judge purportedly has the ability to keep emotion out of their decision ? Where juries are prone to be much more emotional in their decisions. Some even say , a jury decision is almost always emotional. Because they have no professional knowledge of the law, beyond the judges instructions.

This is why in the case of a black/white or male/female defendant , they try to seat a balanced jury, in the case of a jury trial.
Click to expand...
The jurors in the first trial of the 4 officers who pounded on Rodney King were not balanced. They were all white. And obviously, all racist. That's why they arrived at the "not guilty" verdict. Interesting how 2 of the officers were found guilty in the Federal trial.
 
Repeating the obvious fact that at times juries (and judges) make mistakes, and that most people on juries are not Supreme Court justices, is absolutely no justification for a lynch mob. Ever. I can't believe this actually has to be said to some members of this "friendly forum," but there it is. And that was the original subject of this discussion.
 
Sunny said:
Repeating the obvious fact that at times juries (and judges) make mistakes, and that most people on juries are not Supreme Court justices, is absolutely no justification for a lynch mob. Ever. I can't believe this actually has to be said to some members of this "friendly forum," but there it is. And that was the original subject of this discussion.
Click to expand...

The issue with what you have stated is that when a judge makes a mistake, the defendant has the right to appeal and have the judge’s decision overturned. When a jury errs with a wrong verdict, there is no appeal (if found not guilty) because of no “double jeopardy,” unless the jury rules against the defendant and then he may appeal yet again.

With all the posts that have been made regarding this issue, it appears that the consensus is to allow juries and not vigilantes to decide the fate of the perpetrator.
 
Sunny said:
Repeating the obvious fact that at times juries (and judges) make mistakes, and that most people on juries are not Supreme Court justices, is absolutely no justification for a lynch mob. Ever. I can't believe this actually has to be said to some members of this "friendly forum," but there it is. And that was the original subject of this discussion.
Click to expand...
The situation with the trial of the 4 officers was not a "mistake." An all-white racist jury is not a mistake. It is a setup for an unjust racist verdict - which is exactly what happened. That is what makes our jury system the pathetic joke that it is. And that is what led to the riots that followed. That is also what sometimes contributes to mob justice. And that is what leads to a lack of respect for police officers. People are willing to accept that there will be some bad police officers. But people are NOT willing to accept that such officers will get away with it because our legal system doesn't want to prosecute or convict them. And when they are convicted, they received only a fraction of what a non officer would receive for the same crime.

Example: One of the moronic jurors was interviewed after the first "not guilty" verdict for the 4 officers. The reporter asked her if she thought the verdict was just. She replied, "Yes, because Rodney King was a big, powerful man." (True example of an idiot assigned to be on a jury).
 
I think the whole point is being lost here ........All these guys that make the news, that we tend to discuss on boards like this, Had they not committed a crime, they would have never been beaten. Or sometimes in the case of being stopped for suspicion [of] a crime, they fail to comply with officers demands. They choose to fight ...... that is when things go bad. I am not dismissing bad behavior by some [rogue] officers but , I have said it before, & I am now. If one does not want a bad, perhaps violent interaction with the police ? Behave, stay on the legal side of the law ..... simple.
 
There’s almost always an exception to the rule, as in the Rodney King case. And, we know that there are a few bad cops, juries, prosecutors, judges, etc. So, if we wouldn’t have a jury trial, what would be the next better thing? Professional jury, no, that’s no good for some, so how should we decide the fate of a defendant?
 


Back
Top