|
|
|
Everyone inherently has bias, so I can't really fault the jurors for making the decision they made. To take ordinary people, and overwhelm them with information seems counter-intuitive to creating a trial that will have a fair outcome, but right now, we're kind of stuck with this system that was designed centuries ago. Jury selection is almost always considered a controversial process, especially considering how stupid many people are. Until we have brain-scanning technology that can accurately read people's thoughts that is approved for use in court, this process will almost certainly be left open to continued failure of reasoning, manipulation, and politics.
|
who the hell wants to miss weeks of work for $50 a day
their reactions were totally fine and all the points they brought up were totally valid
|
On April 16 2015 11:21 ninazerg wrote:
Everyone inherently has bias, so I can't really fault the jurors for making the decision they made. To take ordinary people, and overwhelm them with information seems counter-intuitive to creating a trial that will have a fair outcome, but right now, we're kind of stuck with this system that was designed centuries ago. Jury selection is almost always considered a controversial process, especially considering how stupid many people are. Until we have brain-scanning technology that can accurately read people's thoughts that is approved for use in court, this process will almost certainly be left open to continued failure of reasoning, manipulation, and politics.
Even mind-reading technology won't save us from manipulation and politics.
|
not entirely sure what you're getting at, you hint at things like "the interactions" but i'm not watching closely enough to go into things like that?
they just spent 36 hours together completely immersed in this shit, of course they are gonna appear "relieved" for it to be over so to speak
if you are put off by their apparent retardedness (not saying i agree) then that's pretty normal behaviour isn't it? lol
|
There are dozens of interviews with jurors after cases that are extremely troubling. This is not one of them really lol.
|
I can't spare and entire 18 minutes watching this but from the bits I've watched I can say it's a bit troubling. However, the fact that juries are kind of "there against their will" is not particularly surprising, everyone hates jury duty.
Sadly when they said you get to have a jury of your peers, they didn't say they'd be smart or reasonable.
|
are you ever gonna come back and give us a list of 'odd' things? And something other than laughing please, or you need to read about laughing as a coping mechanism.
|
I'm completely fine with these people as my jury. What specifics are you trying to digest?
|
Why are these people interviewed at all? I wouldn't feel comfortable saying anything at all.
I watched a little around 14 minutes in the video, but couldn't really discover something weird. They talk about focussing on the case, reducing bias as much as possible. If they really meant that, i would be fine with such a jury. I'm not a fan of juries compared to judges in general, but I imagined something far worse considering this blog.
|
On April 16 2015 22:22 Djzapz wrote:
I can't spare and entire 18 minutes watching this but from the bits I've watched I can say it's a bit troubling. However, the fact that juries are kind of "there against their will" is not particularly surprising, everyone hates jury duty.
Sadly when they said you get to have a jury of your peers, they didn't say they'd be smart or reasonable.
Not at jury duty against their will, That they didn't want to give the interview but it sounded like they were under the impression that they didn't have a choice.
While the laughing seems odd after condemning a man to life in prison it's not what bothered me, as I also tend to laugh at inappropriate times as a coping mechanism.
I guess if people don't see it they don't see it. There were a few that seemed not clueless based on their responses, but the guy in the blue and white stripped shirt seems like the only one I would want on a jury for me, particularly if I was innocent. The rest of them look like without a fellow juror telling them the legal stuff in deliberation they would just side with the better story/whatever the social alphas are pushing on the group.
The woman in front of him clearly didn't get along with him during deliberations. You can see it on her face practically every time he speaks. He was obviously one of the people during deliberations consistently reminding people of the legal aspects, likely to the dismay of the woman up front.
People seem to say they would be comfortable with these people as their jury, but only one actually said yes in the poll?
Makes me wonder if permabans were done by jury would people be comfortable with this jury deciding on their ban. My bottom line is that it doesn't make a lot of sense to have lawyers making complicated legal cases to people who couldn't pass a basic test on the related legal material. It seems more like sophistry with a slight chance at a few jurors actually understanding their responsibility.
These people knew about as much about the legal requirements to prove murder as they would about a permanent ban offense (going into the process). I just imagine DaPhreak arguing against Farv that Igne should be permanently banned to a randomly selected group of TL'ers. Would we really think that the conclusion would be based on a strict interpretation of set rules? Or whoever had a more convincing story/did the best job at jury selection?
|
Are you for real?
People laugh during funerals of their loved ones.
You presume innocence of Hernandez despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
You are able to tell from an 18 minute, for the involved extremely uncomfortable situation, not only the intellect of the jurors but also their characters as well as what has happened behind closed doors.
You are using a hidden poll as an argument (I doubt you have had very many votes - I for one didn't vote).
You obviously have an axe to grind with the US legal system/any legal authority, but this is ridiculous.
EDIT: Also, that sig of yours. Brilliant stuff.
|
On April 17 2015 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
These people knew about as much about the legal requirements to prove murder as they would about a permanent ban offense (going into the process).
looool
did you just finish a intro to law or philosophy elective or something
I take it the blog ban means yes
it's pretty funny seeing you comment about how little these jurors know about the legal system when the only thing you seem to know about it is that you don't like it
|
On April 17 2015 06:59 Ghostcom wrote:
Are you for real?
People laugh during funerals of their loved ones.
You presume innocence of Hernandez despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
You are able to tell from an 18 minute, for the involved extremely uncomfortable situation, not only the intellect of the jurors but also their characters as well as what has happened behind closed doors.
You are using a hidden poll as an argument (I doubt you have had very many votes - I for one didn't vote).
You obviously have an axe to grind with the US legal system/any legal authority, but this is ridiculous.
EDIT: Also, that sig of yours. Brilliant stuff.
The hell are you talking about? I specifically said I didn't think the laughing was an issue... I didn't presume innocence, I said I didn't know because I didn't follow, based on what little I've read I think he was definitely guilty of some sort of murder charge but I haven't read up on the specific laws in the state or the evidence but reporting and the way the question was asked made it sound like Murder 1 wasn't a slam dunk?
Not sure what the problem with a hidden poll is? The reason I chose to hide it was so that people just answered the question instead of being influenced by what was popular or not.
Obviously I don't 'know' much about them. But I think the types of answers they gave reflects on their process. Also the way they reacted to each other gives us clues about the interactions.
You managed to make up a bunch of stuff I didn't say and ignore the points I just made. I'm glad you got to vent though.
Like I said having been in a situation where I was faced with a plea deal or a prosecutor attempting to throw the book at me for something I didn't do I have personally had to weigh accepting a shitty plea deal admitting to a crime I didn't commit or go to trial with prosecutor convinced I had committed the crime/s and a defense attorney advising me to take the deal. If it hadn't been for friend of mine being from a well off family and hiring private counsel, no one would of even looked for the random businesses surveillance tape that showed we were attacked first and that I hadn't instigated the violence.
Maybe I could of gone to trial and been found not-guilty, but the idea that if the guy had bounced his head on the concrete on the way down and died it could of been totally different is terrifying. I probably still wouldn't have been up for murder 1 but it would of been scary as shit to have my fate in these people's hands.
I'd venture to say no one who doesn't see a problem has ever had the justice system refuse to believe the truth you are telling them all the way up to their lawyer telling them they needed to decide if they were taking the deal as they suggested or going to a trial their defense was not confident in.
Forgiving the stress and that some are thinkers more than speakers that group as a whole did not display the level of sophistication I would hope a jury (especially in a complicated nuanced legal case) would show even under those circumstances..
So you're right that I have issues with how criminal justice is administered and such but this is hardly any extreme example of anything.
|
On April 17 2015 07:36 QuanticHawk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2015 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
These people knew about as much about the legal requirements to prove murder as they would about a permanent ban offense (going into the process). looool did you just finish a intro to law or philosophy elective or something I take it the blog ban means yes it's pretty funny seeing you comment about how little these jurors know about the legal system when the only thing you seem to know about it is that you don't like it
No, just been through it, reported for jury duty and have seen potential jurors and known jurors. This reminded me of the ones I wouldn't trust to make a decision about my car 'based on the evidence' let alone someones life.
If you wan't to have a discussion I'd happily unban you, but if you just want to try to insult me or whatever it will stand.
|
You have edited out the part about why you find the laughing troubling in your OP, so I can't go back and quote that (good job at framing).
The overall tone in your posts, your title as well as your post in the NFL-thread, combined with constantly talking about whether or not you would want these jurors if you were innocent along with your posting history makes it seem very obvious that you find the entire juror decision dubious and that Hernandez was possibly innocent.
The issue with using a hidden poll and stating only 1 voted yes should be so obvious that I wouldn't have to walk you through it, but since you have now made it public we can now all laugh at the fact that you at that time at the most had 7 respondents and tried to pass it off as if an overwhelming majority agreed with you that the juror-group was dubious.
You have shamelessly been trying to blow an awkward situation where average Joes/Janes were put in nationwide media-spotlight of a high-profile murder case out of proportion.
I'm sorry you have had a bad experience with the legal system, that however does not mean that the legal system as a whole is flawed.
EDIT: I do realize that you know have stated that you also think he is guilty.
|
On April 17 2015 07:59 Ghostcom wrote:
You have edited out the part about why you find the laughing troubling in your OP, so I can't go back and quote that (good job at framing).
The overall tone in your posts, your title as well as your post in the NFL-thread, combined with constantly talking about whether or not you would want these jurors if you were innocent along with your posting history makes it seem very obvious that you find the entire juror decision dubious and that Hernandez was possibly innocent.
The issue with using a hidden poll and stating only 1 voted yes should be so obvious that I wouldn't have to walk you through it, but since you have now made it public we can now all laugh at the fact that you at that time at the most had 7 respondents and tried to pass it off as if an overwhelming majority agreed with you that the juror-group was dubious.
You have shamelessly been trying to blow an awkward situation where average Joes/Janes where put in nationwide media-spotlight of a high-profile murder case out of proportion.
I'm sorry you have had a bad experience with the legal system, that however does not mean that the legal system as a whole is flawed.
I didn't edit it today and I didn't edit that out...I said before you even made you post that the laughing wasn't my problem...
Regardless of what you are imagining I meant, I explicitly said before this post that, based on the little I know about the details, that imo he was definitely guilty of something, so I in no way insinuated he was innocent and if that was the perception, me specifically saying otherwise should have cleared that up.
I also didn't change the poll. It's only private until people vote...
You seem to be projecting your own impressions onto why this even bothered me. I don't think every aspect of the legal system is flawed or that all the flaws have obvious or available remedies. My larger concerns are that the law disproportionately harms poor people and minorities and some of the reasons that happens can be addressed. But my issue with this was just the temperament (There's certainly a better word for what I mean) many of the jurors showed, and the general feeling of unease it put in me that they could of been my jury (not literally) is what bothered me.
Responses like the guy in the back gave is what I would hope my jurors would more or less sound like. With standards like "what a reasonable person would do" that you find in laws, several of those people are not what I imagine when I think of a "reasonable person" given I'm making snap judgments that aren't fair to them, I think there were some clear (to some at least) signs.
EDIT: Also the whole post trial press conference. @~12:50 they sound like they are under the impression they don't have a choice but to answer some questions.
Also what farv was saying in that there are far worse examples of post trial interviews and how many of them go unnoticed bothered me. Let alone the juries that are even worse but just never speak out.
|
We let an idiot's vote count as much as anyone else's in elections, why not in jury too?
|
On April 17 2015 09:05 Glowsphere wrote:
We let an idiot's vote count as much as anyone else's in elections, why not in jury too?
Well I think one key difference is what we presume the result of an election is vs the outcome of a court case. An election just represents the preference of those who voted, whereas a jury's decision means something else.
As an example we could say that voters preferred Obama over Romney, but it wouldn't make sense to say a jury decided that they preferred a guilty or not-guilty verdict.
|
Jurors are people randomly selected from the community and then chosen through voir dire. There were probably worse jurors that the defense got rid of during the process. But you can't get rid of everyone. That is your answer.
What I don't understand is your interest in this case. Hernandez is clearly a fucked up human being.
|
On April 17 2015 12:12 IgnE wrote:
Jurors are people randomly selected from the community and then chosen through voir dire. There were probably worse jurors that the defense got rid of during the process. But you can't get rid of everyone. That is your answer.
What I don't understand is your interest in this case. Hernandez is clearly a fucked up human being.
None in the case really, it's just the first group jury interview I have seen with them answering the types of questions the way they did. Usually high profile case jurors typically try to remain anonymous, don't they? Unless they are writing a book or whatever? And people have little interest in jurors from low profile cases?
I see now people assumed I had any interest in the case itself, a fair mistake, but for those thinking my concern had anything to do with Hernandez or the crimes themselves can be assured that's not what I was focused on. It was just a video catalyst for my pre-existing concerns about jurors.
I see different descriptions of the jury process saying it's to try to get intentionally biased jurors for your side and the idea is that both sides doing that gives you a more or less fair jury, but the legal sites say it's just to observe that they are competent and that their bias's don't disqualify them. Is it one of those things that it's supposed to be to make sure the jurors are competent and such but in practice is used to get the most biased jurors you can (for your side) past the screening process while eliminating the ones you can from the other side?
Or is the idea of getting the most biased in your favor juror on the jury what the law suggests lawyers to do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
