RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity

RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Marc2b -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 11:02:21 AM)
Isn't a defendent's character a legitamate matter for a jury in deciding innocence or guilt? It seems to me that the man's tatoos speak volumes of his character.

Marc2b -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 11:03:38 AM)
quote: Reading the article it's too bad that the people in the house he broke into didn't shoot him! Where's Orion when you need him? [:)]

chiaThePet -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 11:04:34 AM)
I'll forward the fact that Johnny likes to wear make-up to his prison bed buddy Bruno. Free of charge to the taxpayer of course. chia* (the pet)

rulemylife -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 11:04:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Do you really think the guy is innocent? Yes, until he's proven guilty. It's the basis of our judicial system. Which is why the attorneys on both sides are allowed to question potential jurors, to weed out those that have predetermined guilt or innocence of the accused.

breatheasone -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 11:05:24 AM)
~~FR~~ Gee and i always thought a jury of peers would be intelligent enough to listen to evidence, and not be stupid enough to judge a book by its cover....silly me.

rulemylife -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 11:18:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b Isn't a defendent's character a legitamate matter for a jury in deciding innocence or guilt? It seems to me that the man's tatoos speak volumes of his character. No. Guilt or innocence should be decided on the facts presented in the case, nothing else. Let's say you were the defendant, would you think your involvement in the BDSM community would "speak volumes" of your character? Many would, and be prejudicial toward you on that basis alone.

LadyPact -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 11:18:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Do you really think the guy is innocent? Yes, until he's proven guilty. It's the basis of our judicial system. Which is why the attorneys on both sides are allowed to question potential jurors, to weed out those that have predetermined guilt or innocence of the accused. Since it is highly unlikely that I will be asked to jury duty in FL, I'll reserve My right to draw My own conclusions. Edited for.... quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Let's say you were the defendant, would you think your involvement in the BDSM community would "speak volumes" of your character? Many would, and be prejudicial toward you on that basis alone. Actually, it would, considering that My involvement in many activities through the BDSM community had nothing to do with harassing My neighbor for having visitors of another race, pre-dating the crime in question. I'm even willing to bet that, through that same community, there would be a few out there that would make damn fine character witnesses for Me.

slvemike4u -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 11:24:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: breatheasone ~~FR~~ Gee and i always thought a jury of peers would be intelligent enough to listen to evidence, and not be stupid enough to judge a book by its cover....silly me. And did you also think they were intelligent enough to totally ignore visual prejudicial evidence staring them in the face the the entirety of the trial. If the answer to that is yes.....then you were wrong!

Lucienne -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 11:36:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: breatheasone ~~FR~~ Gee and i always thought a jury of peers would be intelligent enough to listen to evidence, and not be stupid enough to judge a book by its cover....silly me. Gosh... if that were true, we wouldn't have to summon 60 people to pull together a panel of 14 jurors. People don't suddenly become vulcans when they get sworn in as jurors. There's usually enough opportunity to sneak in bias in a cleanly presented case, no sense mucking up the works with extra temptation. And restricting yourself to considering admissible evidence isn't a matter of intelligence, as much as discipline and the ability to set things aside. This usually takes some effort, even for the most well-intentioned juror, because it's not how people normally process the world.

rulemylife -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 11:37:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Since it is highly unlikely that I will be asked to jury duty in FL, I'll reserve My right to draw My own conclusions. You are free to draw your own conclusions all day long. But as a potential juror you would be disqualified based on that conclusion before a trial is held, which was my point. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Let's say you were the defendant, would you think your involvement in the BDSM community would "speak volumes" of your character? Many would, and be prejudicial toward you on that basis alone. quote: Actually, it would, considering that My involvement in many activities through the BDSM community had nothing to do with harassing My neighbor for having visitors of another race, pre-dating the crime in question. I'm even willing to bet that, through that same community, there would be a few out there that would make damn fine character witnesses for Me. You think? How many are out and open? How many would come forward and put their careers and vanilla life in jeopardy? Or are you operating under the assumption that BDSM is now openly acceptable? Because I can assure you there are a great many people who do not find it so.

LadyPact -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 11:57:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife I already addressed the first part of the quote prior. Not only am I not being called to jury in the state of FL, I based My opinions on the relation of the events in the piece quoted. Not the fact that the accused had tattoos. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife You think? Yes, actually, I do. quote: How many are out and open? Oh, I wouldn't say it was a large number, but I could honestly say that there is at least one BDSM club owner, one general manager of the same, and one published author that would cover the criteria. quote: How many would come forward and put their careers and vanilla life in jeopardy? Of the three references that came to My mind listed above, they already have known links to the BDSM and/or leather community. quote: Or are you operating under the assumption that BDSM is now openly acceptable? Not at all. I'm very well aware that it isn't. quote: Because I can assure you there are a great many people who do not find it so. I think the problem here is that you are confusing what would be your potential situation from Mine. I can promise you that I would have no trouble finding very good character references. It's a situation that I already dealt with last year when I had to go through the trouble that I did regarding My legal issues due to identity theft.

rulemylife -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 12:06:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I think the problem here is that you are confusing what would be your potential situation from Mine. I can promise you that I would have no trouble finding very good character references. It's a situation that I already dealt with last year when I had to go through the trouble that I did regarding My legal issues due to identity theft. No, I think the problem is you are trying to personalize the discussion to your own experiences while I am speaking in general terms.

LadyPact -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 12:07:48 PM)
Oddly enough, I would think character, and therefore character references, would be personal in some way.

rulemylife -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 12:38:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Oddly enough, I would think character, and therefore character references, would be personal in some way. Yes, that is odd, when we are speaking of a legal situation. While you may think references from those involved in the lifestyle would bolster your credibility, the sad fact is that the majority of the population view this as an aberration and even a form of mental illness. And you can be sure that if you were on trial a prosecutor would trot out some hack "experts" who would testify to that very claim.

Musicmystery -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/10/2009 11:28:21 AM)
What's the point of trials? If we all know who's guilty and who's innocent already, just from what we read... Damn Constitution. I blame Madison.

slvemike4u -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/10/2009 11:45:00 AM)
Why not,if it was good enough for Hamilton it should be good enough for you.

mnottertail -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/10/2009 11:48:51 AM)
I am thinking that we should cast our net further back to Button Gwinnett. John Hancock

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/10/2009 11:51:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery What's the point of trials? If we all know who's guilty and who's innocent already, just from what we read... Damn Constitution. I blame Madison. Presumption of innocence is a legal maxim only, and has no weight outside the courts. You can assume someones factual guilt to your hearts content, as long as it doesn't enter into any legal determination of guilt or innocence. OJ is factually guilty as hell of Nicole's murder, regardless of the determination of his legal innocence within the courts.

mnottertail -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/10/2009 11:59:30 AM)
other than I agree with you overall in this narrow statement, wilber.... Factual doesn't mean what you think it means. Ron

LadyPact -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/10/2009 12:03:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery What's the point of trials? If we all know who's guilty and who's innocent already, just from what we read... Damn Constitution. I blame Madison. Which is one of the very good reasons that I've never been selected for jury duty. LOL. The constitution states that every accused person has the right to a fair trial. Not that anyone ever reading about events that make the news has no thought process to form an opinion.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125