EPTOn July 13 2013 04:08 dAPhREAk wrote:
oh, are juries predictable in the Netherlands?
oh, are juries predictable in the Netherlands?
Well you never know when a mouthy Hobbit is going to interrupt the summit at Rivendell.
Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 392
| Forum Index > General Forum |
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
Well you never know when a mouthy Hobbit is going to interrupt the summit at Rivendell. | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On July 13 2013 04:08 dAPhREAk wrote: oh, are juries predictable in the Netherlands? I don't think they use juries in Netherlands. Could be wrong though. | ||
|
woody60707
United States1863 Posts
It's a stupid ass law imo. Marissa Alexander fired off her gun to scare her husband. Now she is guilty of battery. She went to her car to get a gun, and came back with the gun to scare (battery) her husband. But that is normally only a few years at the most (and with her clean record likely a lot less). But because she used a firearm, it is by law 20 years minimum. The jury had no clue when they passed the guilty verdict that is was 20 years minimum. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/marissa-alexander-gets-20_n_1530035.html So Zimmerman is looking at mandatory minimum sentencing of 25 years (or life) I believe, but I could be wrong. | ||
|
Sabu113
United States11109 Posts
On July 13 2013 04:08 dAPhREAk wrote: oh, are juries predictable in the Netherlands? Actually Lawyers why do you like Juries for trials rather than Judges? (One or a panel) | ||
|
Roxor9999
Netherlands771 Posts
On July 13 2013 04:12 nihlon wrote: I don't think they use juries in Netherlands. Could be wrong though. They don't, but that was not his point. He was just stating that the jury could be 'dumb' or make the wrong decision just because they are american is ridiculous. | ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 13 2013 04:06 dAPhREAk wrote: is the jury out to make a decision now? if so, that does not bode well for defense. jury is going to want to get done with it and go home for the weekend. they are not going to want to be sequestered over the weekend. juries tend to be biased against defendants ("why would the state go after them if they arent guilty"). generally speaking, defense want longer deliberations (more time to create reasonable doubt) and prosecutor wants shorter deliberations (clear cut case). not that this will matter much in this case specifically, but those are general trends. ya. I see your point, maybe they'll be quick about their decision? They could also take longer just to make sure they are sure of their final verdict? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 13 2013 04:13 Sabu113 wrote: Actually Lawyers why do you like Juries for trials rather than Judges? (One or a panel) There are pros and cons to each. Most criminal cases at this level are settled by jury. Its the Defendant's choice. | ||
|
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 13 2013 04:13 woody60707 wrote: The reason why prison time is so long is due to mandatory minimum sentencing in florida when a firearm is used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-20-Life It's a stupid ass law imo. Marissa Alexander fired off her gun to scare her husband. Now she is guilty of battery. She went to her car to get a gun, and came back with the gun to scare (battery) her husband. But that is normally only a few years at the most (and with her clean record likely a lot less). But because she used a firearm, it is by law 20 years minimum. The jury had no clue when they passed the guilty verdict that is was 20 years minimum. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/marissa-alexander-gets-20_n_1530035.html So Zimmerman is looking at mandatory minimum sentencing of 25 years (or life) I believe, but I could be wrong. I think that case comes to mind. 20 years for just firing a firearm :O wow, that's a pretty bad law. I think they should inform the jury what the time frames are like but I guess that can create bias? | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
|
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 13 2013 04:17 Cheerio wrote: is it over? where can I see closing arguments by defence? there's a link in the OP right under the court's link I believe. As for over, well, waiting for the final decision. | ||
|
Roxor9999
Netherlands771 Posts
On July 13 2013 04:17 Cheerio wrote: is it over? where can I see closing arguments by defence? Check the OP for a youtube account with the whole trial. Edit: Beaten to it. | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On July 13 2013 04:14 Roxor9999 wrote: They don't, but that was not his point. He was just stating that the jury could be 'dumb' or make the wrong decision just because they are american is ridiculous. I know, I wasn't arguing against that, just wanted to clarify that point. | ||
|
Roxor9999
Netherlands771 Posts
On July 13 2013 04:22 nihlon wrote: I know, I wasn't arguing against that, just wanted to clarify that point. Yeah you're right I kinda quoted the wrong person. | ||
|
HystericaLaughter
Australia720 Posts
On July 13 2013 04:15 Plansix wrote: There are pros and cons to each. Most criminal cases at this level are settled by jury. Its the Defendant's choice. Can you give me a little more information on this please? Don't bother if it's too much effort or too complicated, but in my uninformed, untrained opinion a Jury would be wildly more unpredictable than say, a panel of Judges. A panel of professionals would be far less likely to be emotionally influenced and would have considerably more experienced with similar cases, resulting in more consistency. | ||
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 13 2013 04:13 Sabu113 wrote: Actually Lawyers why do you like Juries for trials rather than Judges? (One or a panel) depends on the lawyer. i would prefer the biases of 12 people to 1 if the judge is bad for us. we tend to prefer bench trials though. we defend oil companies though and its hard to find a jury that is biased in favor of us. | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On July 13 2013 04:25 HystericaLaughter wrote: Can you give me a little more information on this please? Don't bother if it's too much effort or too complicated, but in my uninformed, untrained opinion a Jury would be wildly more unpredictable than say, a panel of Judges. A panel of professionals would be far less likely to be emotionally influenced and would have considerably more experienced with similar cases, resulting in more consistency. That inconsistency can play to the defense's favor as well. If the emotional arguments favor the defense then the defendant would probably wanna choose trial by jury. | ||
|
stratmatt
United States913 Posts
On July 13 2013 04:17 BigFan wrote: I think that case comes to mind. 20 years for just firing a firearm :O wow, that's a pretty bad law. I think they should inform the jury what the time frames are like but I guess that can create bias? Dont sugarcoat it. She fired a shot AT her ex and MISSED. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 13 2013 04:25 HystericaLaughter wrote: Can you give me a little more information on this please? Don't bother if it's too much effort or too complicated, but in my uninformed, untrained opinion a Jury would be wildly more unpredictable than say, a panel of Judges. A panel of professionals would be far less likely to be emotionally influenced and would have considerably more experienced with similar cases, resulting in more consistency. civil plaintiffs and criminal defendants prefer juries because they are more easily manipulated. civil defendants and criminal prosecutors prefer judges/arbitrators because they focus on the law and facts. this is obviously general though, and case-specific there may be instances where the latter is true. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 13 2013 04:25 HystericaLaughter wrote: Can you give me a little more information on this please? Don't bother if it's too much effort or too complicated, but in my uninformed, untrained opinion a Jury would be wildly more unpredictable than say, a panel of Judges. A panel of professionals would be far less likely to be emotionally influenced and would have considerably more experienced with similar cases, resulting in more consistency. Same with my firm, since we represent banks and jury trials are to be avoided at all cost. But it depends. There have been cases where the Plaintiff has hung themselves out to dry with a few key statements and the jury raked them over the coals for it. Like everything else, it on a case by case basis. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 13 2013 04:29 stratmatt wrote: Dont sugarcoat it. She fired a shot AT her ex and MISSED. I thought she fired it to scare him away, from the police report. I could remember wrong. At the end of the day, 20 years was a bit insane for a crime where no one was hurt or died. | ||
| ||
