Comments
gumpbackwhale t1_isbpmpq wrote
Sounds like the movie 12 angry men
dvowel t1_isbmtko wrote
Is it not mandatory?
HaCo111 t1_isboxcu wrote
Easy to get disqualified. I had jury duty earlier this year and in the second day of jury selection got disqualified for having tinnitus.
fradigit t1_isc7mgu wrote
I think they are getting more desperate for jurors. I sat on a jury earlier this year about eminent domain, and 2 of the jurors also owned property that was involved in the same project. Somehow they were still selected. My coworkers were also surprised I was selected as a CPA, usually they were released shortly after identifying their occupation. I think it's either a backlog of cases or less people showing up but they seem to be much less picky about who will be on the jury.
Matookie t1_isck0ub wrote
IME many people do not vote because they might be called.
ETA: Damn, y'all, why you downvoting me? I'm just telling you all what I have heard.
fradigit t1_iscnwuk wrote
It isn't certified mail, so they can easily say they just never received the jury summons... Sometimes I think people are looking for excuses to not vote.
mammoth61 t1_iscsxfh wrote
For clarification, do you mean some people don’t vote/register because they might be jury summoned? I just know 3 states in the US that don’t use voter registry, but instead use DMV records (that’s how I got summoned, despite moving out of state months earlier).
fradigit t1_isd09fa wrote
I didn't claim that, the person above me did. My state uses DMV records but I did a quick Google search and it seems at least some places use voter registration for jury selection.
swift_risk88 t1_ise7wc8 wrote
Bro if Reddit had profile pics, you would take your downvotes with pride.
[deleted] t1_iscxvr7 wrote
[removed]
pinkjello t1_isdkjrv wrote
Are CPAs typically dismissed in jury selection? Why?
Edit: oh, they are.
BrainofBorg t1_isesasy wrote
Covid resulted in a MASSIVE backlog of cases.
PatacusX t1_isc5o6x wrote
I had jury duty once in a fatal car accident case. I got eliminated really early on (along with pretty much all of the younger jurors) and one of the things they were asking about was if we had experience driving large vehicles.
JohnnyAK907 t1_isc4h0k wrote
It is? I said in my interview that I would vote not guilty because the "victim" was not only a jackass for selling his returned engagement ring after he cancelled the wedding but a moron for being stupid enough to take a check from a complete stranger for 3 grand without verifying it first and deserved to be scammed. They still put me in the jury.
If there is a better way to get out of jury duty than showing a flagrant disregard for the whole process then I would love to hear it.
DudeIsAbiden t1_iscgn19 wrote
I usually ask a hostile question of the prosecutor during Voir Dire-or express my disdain for police, judges, DAs etc while answering a question- and I get kicked every time
Eskimo_Brothers t1_ise3u60 wrote
Changing my ringtone to Fuck the Police ought to do it....
CupcakesAreTasty t1_iscv7fn wrote
>If there is a better way to get out of jury duty than showing a flagrant disregard for the whole process then I would love to hear it.
Know how the law works. And make it obvious when the judge and lawyers are talking to you. Lawyers hate educated jurors, especially jurors who know how the law works. Prosecutors will be scared they'll fail to convince you, and defense attorneys will be scared you're too smart to have the wool pulled over your eyes.
As soon as I told the judge I was a history teacher who had also taught law, I was dismissed.
Revolutionary-Yak-47 t1_isdgjaf wrote
Tell them you don't believe cops are more reliable witnesses than anyone else. Here in FL, it's the fastest way out of the courtroom
HaCo111 t1_isci8rw wrote
Just act like you are really interested but there is something keeping you from paying attention to the trial. In my case it was tinnitus. I just asked to step out for a second and got dismissed.
[deleted] t1_iscroz5 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_isdwcza wrote
[removed]
justec1 t1_isbxo5d wrote
That's a valid excuse? If so, thank the gods I went to all those concerts in my 20s.
HaCo111 t1_iscibgb wrote
Yeah, just say you are worried about it affecting your ability to pay attention to the trial
mces97 t1_isg8rws wrote
Oh wow, you can get disqualified for having Tinnitus. Good to know. I have Tinnitus. I got disqualified because I said my brother got a shit deal when he was mentally ill and was ruled not competent to stand trial, but competent enough to somehow be found guilty. I've always actually wanted to serve, but the case I was on I wanted no part of. This person was charged with a dozen felonies. One was attempted murder against a cop. And that cop was given a medal from Obama for what happened to him. Fuck that, I ain't gonna be the person to look at evidence and what if there was a struggle and it looks like the gun accidentally went off? I don't want to be the guy who says no guilty and get on a shit list.
[deleted] t1_isfa4e7 wrote
[deleted]
addicted_to_placebos t1_isbnxuv wrote
It’s is here in the US as far as I know, but the jury selection process makes it easy to get out of a case if you really wanted to. My highschool civics teacher even suggested just acting super racist if you really don’t want to serve, tho I disagree with the idea of trying to skirt such duties personally.
Tashus t1_isboe3w wrote
>I disagree with the idea of trying to skirt such duties personally.
Yeah, I hope I'm never charged with anything, with my fate in the hands of a jury of my peers, or rather the ones that weren't able to get out of it.
addicted_to_placebos t1_isbqz29 wrote
I don’t really recall anyone specifically trying to get out of the jury I served on, tho the whole process was rather eye-opening.
I don’t particularly like the idea that the quicker they decide a case the quicker they can leave, I think that plays a big role in jurors intimidating/bullying each other. I had nearly the entire rest of the jury table yelling at me for being the one dissenter during our preliminary vote.
Tashus t1_isbyzly wrote
If you haven't watched the 1957 classic Twelve Angry Men, I highly recommend it.
addicted_to_placebos t1_isc0ohq wrote
Oh I’ve seen it, it’s certainly a classic. Our arguments were considerably less animated tho, luckily.
DudeIsAbiden t1_iscgx04 wrote
Having been surrounded by barely literate idiots on every jury selection I have been on for 30 years, I will def ask for a bench trial if I ever get in enough trouble to need it.
Saltyballs2020 t1_iscm3mj wrote
Ah yes. A bench trial in front of a Judge meeting these officers for a FOP endorsement, ex parte search warrants, and politically connected.
DudeIsAbiden t1_iscn0hl wrote
You get it. Either way, screwed
equalsolstice t1_isbvwht wrote
Lmao this is literally the premise of an American dad episode
onioning t1_isctfs8 wrote
Honestly the whole jury of our peers concept is pretty fucking awful all over. I do not see how letting the legal actors pick and choose twelve people who then somehow have power over law despite not having any relevant qualifications is possibly a good thing. I'm pretty hugely distrustful of the state, but at least the state is theoretically accountable.
Inevitable_Physics t1_isbuzib wrote
There was a lady who showed up for jury duty dressed up in a Star Trek Next Generation (complete with tricorder, I think). Don't remember whether she got onto a jury.
Inevitable_Physics t1_isbv3xm wrote
[deleted] t1_isd2gsu wrote
[deleted]
Murky_Conflict3737 t1_iskquls wrote
She actually got taken off for speaking with a reporter while serving which is a big legal no-no.
themoneybadger t1_iscov8q wrote
Theres an entire curb your enthusiasm based on this. Larry pretends to be super racist to get off a jury.
Cfp0001-Iceman t1_iseq2ym wrote
If you cannot afford to miss work or that being on the jury would cause you intense financial hardship, you can request to be excused from duty. They don't pay you enough to cover anything more than some of you travel expenses.
Old_Week t1_isbrxk0 wrote
When they’re asking questions during jury selection, just say you think anyone who’s arrested is guilty. You’ll be sent home.
LaLionneEcossaise t1_iscvjwm wrote
Years ago I was on a jury for a murder/attempted murder case. During jury selection, they asked if anyone on the panel had issues with our local police force. One guy stood up and ranted for a good five or six minutes about how he thought the cops were all crooked and he’d never believe anything they said. He went on and on. Finally, the judge broke in and just asked the prosecuting attorneys if they wanted to use one of their refusals. They of course did.
That guy knew what he was doing—he smirked and even commented to some of us as he left, “And that’s how you do it!”
[deleted] t1_isbvs18 wrote
[removed]
AbandonedArchive t1_isbzmxz wrote
I emailed the clerk and told them I had important stuff to do at work and they replied back that I was excused from serving.
I guess your mileage may vary.
jonathanrdt t1_iscvz7p wrote
If you say you don’t trust police and/or may not follow a judge’s instruction, you won’t ever serve.
abigailxo94 t1_isf2dps wrote
I just told the judge that I don't find cops to be reliable witnesses and I was pretty much immediately dismissed. You still have to go in and stuff but it's easy enough to talk your way out of.
ariceli t1_isc5w4c wrote
It is mandatory to go and see if they select you but there are many ways to get out of it that I now know.
[deleted] t1_isci1j9 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_isczkrk wrote
[removed]
vindictivemonarch t1_isj69s9 wrote
ive been summoned several times. everytime they find out i have a stem degree in the survey and don't contact me again for several years.
probably keeps their conviction rates higher or something
Inevitable_Physics t1_isbuoxb wrote
IT is mandatory to show up for jury duty when summoned. After that...
DistributedDemocracy t1_isbub9y wrote
That's kind of like going to the dentist and having a bad visit and then going around and publicly telling everyone to not go to the dentist. You do more harm than good with an accendotal account and absolute interpretation.
Crazyhates t1_isbuzjg wrote
Well in this case jury duty is mandatory service for less pay than you'd get at your job. You have to still prepare/buy your own lunch and sometimes it's ridiculously cumbersome to attend or far away. In my case I also had to pay for parking for all the days I was there putting me at a net negative. I don't think I've ever seen anyone jump for joy at jury duty.
hydrochloriic t1_iscp1zx wrote
I just went through selection today- they didn’t provide lunch because Covid. So they said you could bring lunch.
But another part of the summons said “no outside food or drink allowed.” Another potential juror and I got turned around at the security check when we tried to bring food.
But a bunch of others were let through with food & drink containers.
Yanlex t1_isc8t7z wrote
When I did it they kept us there until ~10pm and only provided a single medium pizza for all of us for dinner. (We weren't allowed to leave)
ariceli t1_isc6zap wrote
I never told anyone they shouldn’t do it. Just that bullying definitely can occur. It’s not always the serious seeking of justice experience. At least it wasn’t for me.
countrybumpkin1969 t1_isbxqpr wrote
I will never serve again either. The bullying I experienced was awful and I was in tears. It was a few years ago and I still get angry about my experience.
orangeorchid t1_isc1tib wrote
Oh man, me too. A murder of a police officer. Never again. We sent a 16 year old accompliss away for life. Although the laws have changed and I believe he was released.
mynameisalso t1_isfqio5 wrote
I didn't know it was a choice you could make
ariceli t1_isgzygn wrote
It’s not a choice but there are many ways to get out of it which I learned when I served.
pat_micucci t1_isdiblf wrote
> I will NEVER serve again.
You don’t really have a choice.
barrinmw t1_isb21wk wrote
Part of that article is about how in death penalty cases, they select for people who are fine with the death penalty. That seems fucked up to me because then you aren't being judged by your peers, but by the people who are okay with the government killing you.
If 40% of the population is against the death penalty (made up number) then you should have approximately 40% members of murder juries made up of people who are against the death penalty. If you can't convince 12 average americans that it is okay to kill this person, then it shouldn't happen.
RnDanger t1_isb2k64 wrote
I completely agree. It's a fucked up way to perpetuate state violence through predetermined outcomes.
[deleted] t1_isc7vh8 wrote
[removed]
N8CCRG t1_isbj5dg wrote
That's not what "by a jury of your peers" means though. There's no conflict with that.
Imakemop t1_isc02du wrote
I HAVE NO PEERS, I can do whatever I want.
Anonuser123abc t1_isc0jlh wrote
So you live in the Yellowstone murder loophole zone?
Imakemop t1_isc7ua1 wrote
I actually live within bury a body distance of there.
Anonuser123abc t1_isc806t wrote
Lol if my understanding is correct you have to kill them in the zone.
Imakemop t1_isc8786 wrote
That's for you to prove copper!
[deleted] t1_isc4oct wrote
[removed]
ithriosa t1_isb50zm wrote
Naah. That is a political matter not a legal matter. They select people who are willing to make a choice asked on law, and current law states that the death penalty is legal and fine in their jurisdiction.
>If you can't convince 12 average americans
It is not about 12 random Americans. This is not a federal case. It is a state case. And it is not a matter of popular opinion, it is a matter of law. Jurors are not allowed to make decisions for any reason, they need to be based on the law in question.
If you don't think the death penalty should be legal, then work for political change. However this is court and if the law states that death is an option, then so must the jurors. I think you misunderstand the jury system.
barrinmw t1_isb7jje wrote
Jurors literally make decisions, that is their job. They decide on guilt and they decide on sentencing, sometimes. And the jury is the last line of defense against a tyrannical justice system.
PaxNova t1_isbkzd6 wrote
Jurors are finders of fact, not determiners of law. That "sometimes" does a lot of work there, as most states and the federal government do not allow juries to determine sentencing.
A jury may be the last line against tyranny, but for a criminal trial, they also almost always have to be unanimous. That means if a single person out of twelve disagrees with the law, nobody can be convicted of it. That would cover pretty much all laws.
AmHoomon t1_iscmkc7 wrote
> Jurors are finders of fact, not determiners of law.
Here's an exercise:
Where, in what law, binds jurors as you describe?
PaxNova t1_iscp7aw wrote
Definitions will vary in statute by state, but Wex defines then as finders of fact. The definition will be used in statute.
There is difficulty in holding them to it, as you cannot dispute the facts once they are found by the jury except on certain circumstances, but the intent / spirit of the law is clear.
barrinmw t1_isbmmlb wrote
Looking it up, in death penalty cases it looks like jurors always get to determine if it is applicable and it always has to be unanimous regardless of state or federal.
ithriosa t1_iscxsgt wrote
No one is saying that jurors have no choice...
Tipop t1_isbq45j wrote
Ok, let’s flip the argument and see if it holds water.
The law says execution is not a valid punishment for rape… but the jury is selected with 12 women — all former rape victims and angry about it — who are more than willing to sentence the rapist to death if the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt.
If it’s okay for the jurists to ignore the law in one direction, is it ok to go the other direction?
barrinmw t1_isbtsxi wrote
Of course not and that isn't a good argument.
If I say that we should never put anyone to death, you don't get to defeat that argument by saying it would be just as silly to say we should put everyone to death. Not everything can just have the roles reversed and be the same logically.
Tipop t1_isbu5ro wrote
The argument you made wasn’t “we shouldn’t put people to death”. Your argument was that jurors should be allowed to dictate the sentence even if it’s not allowed by the law.
I’m against the death penalty, too, but your argument doesn’t hold water.
barrinmw t1_isbuiqi wrote
My example was showing you can't just reverse the situation and take logical conclusions from it.
And no, I wasn't saying that jurors should be allowed to dictate the sentence even if it's not allowed by the law because literally no law only has the death penalty as the consequence of breaking it. A jury has to choose between applying the death penalty in cases that allow it or not. My point is that potential jurors who wouldn't approve of the death penalty should still be allowed to sit on trials where the death penalty is in play.
sweetpeapickle t1_isbu2cc wrote
Well it's not as simple as that. Main part would be the where. In some states, the judge can overrule. Not to mention, the defendent's lawyer might have a say with 12 women, & I'm sure at some point in the questioning of potential jurors, that might come up. Then there is the appeal.
Tipop t1_isbuq3o wrote
We’re not arguing about whether it would survive appeal or if the judge could set aside the verdict. That’s not the question here. The question is “If it’s okay for jurors to ignore the law and DENY the death penalty when the law says it should be applied, then is it ok for jurors to APPLY the death penalty when the law says it shouldn’t?”
NemosGhost t1_iscu1f8 wrote
The point is that the juror can protect the accused from the state. It doesn't work the other way around. The idea is bogus.
Also the judge can absolutely throw out a verdict of guilty or lesson a sentence. The judge however cannot overrule a verdict of not guilty or a decision not to impose the death penalty.
Flat_Hat8861 t1_isc87wa wrote
You seem a bit confused on what a jury does.
Juries are arbiters of facts. Judges are arbiters of law.
If it is a question of facts (and the right hasn't been waived), it is exclusively a jury question. On a death penalty case the question to the jury is "do the facts presented warrant death as the punishment?" There is not a question on if the law supports such a penalty. The summary of the law the juries get helps them understand what the bar is, but only the jury decides if the facts are sufficient.
Your example doesn't provide any questions of fact. If death is not a possibility the jury would never be asked if the facts justify an impossible outcome. That is a question of law that is decided by the judge. This case would be a normal (not capital) criminal case. The jury is given a summary of the law for each charge filed and the jury is asked if the facts presented meet the requirements. The judge would then handle sentencing later (because that is a law question).
ithriosa t1_isb8yfq wrote
>Jurors literally make decisions, that is their job. They decide on guilt and they decide on sentencing, sometimes.
I never said that they didn't make decisions. However they are contained in the decisions that they can make, and they are contrained in how they are supposed to base their decisions.
>And the jury is the last line of defense against a tyrannical justice system.
Sure, however the Justice system is also supposed to be the last line of defense against popular sentiment and popular bias. There are laws, and the jury needs to be conducted in accordance with the law.
Jurors often need to make a decision that goes against their personal opinions and in accordance to the law and evidence presented.
TheNewGirl_ t1_isb9ru0 wrote
>The request comes after a jury Thursday kept Cruz from getting the death penalty, recommending life in prison without parole by default when it did not unanimously agree Cruz should get capital punishment.
Sounds like the jurors are allowed to decide if Capital Punishment is warranted and if not they can by default recommend Life Imprisonment
If you are of the mind that Life Imprisonment is the correct course of action the law says a juror can make that decision
Literally 3 people on this specifc jury were against the death penalty - thats why hes not getting death
ithriosa t1_iscwetr wrote
>Sounds like the jurors are allowed to decide if Capital Punishment is warranted and if not they can by default recommend Life Imprisonment
Yes. I know. I never said the jury couldn't or shouldnt...
supereasybake t1_isbgnpg wrote
Not clear if they were against the death penalty in general or if they were against it in this particular case because of fetal alcohol syndrome.
TheNewGirl_ t1_isbh5vi wrote
That would have been something the lawyers would have asked during the jury selection process
were you there, ofcourse you dont know if not
haplol t1_isbrlzw wrote
Jury nullification is the obvious part of the judicial system that proves you wrong
ithriosa t1_iscxfap wrote
It is part of the judicial system in a similar way as shoplifting is part of shopping. You can do it, and you'll likely get away with it so long as you don't tell the proprietor what you are planning.
Nullification does not prove me wrong. The fact that some do not consider the law or evidence does not refute that they are supposed to. Neglect of duty does not disprove existence of duty.
Jealous-Working-9454 t1_isbg9c7 wrote
Um, no... as someone else pointed out a juror can act as a wildcard against judicial tyranny. That is why we have it. Prosecutors (and sometimes Judges hate that). Terrorists aren't the only ones who hate our freedoms. Me, I hate the 2nd amendment and gun nuts. Cruz should be treated but we have to lock him up just in case he gets his hands on some more guns and we aren't going to get rid of the guns, so... I applaud the courage of the jurors who stood up to the group think brutality! Hooray for them but this is worrisome to me because it might give the state another shot at trying to kill him (which I bet would make some of you sooo happy).
ithriosa t1_iscwajn wrote
>someone else pointed out a juror can act as a wildcard against judicial tyranny.
And as a wildcard against justice.
>I applaud the courage of the jurors who stood up to the group think brutality! Hooray for them but this is worrisome to me because it might give the state another shot at trying to kill him (which I bet would make some of you sooo happy).
I dont care. That isn't relevant. I am also against the deth penalty. I think it is fine that the jury voted against death. But I also think it is proper and appropriate to exclude jurors who express a disregard to the law
Jealous-Working-9454 t1_isd104e wrote
And how did the juror express that disregard, exactly...?
ithriosa t1_isdj7xz wrote
>And how did the juror express that disregard, exactly
The juror didn't express disregard...
I am not saying that voting against death penalty in this case is disregard for the law.
I am saying that refusing to apply the death penalty in ANY circumstance regardless of evidence or detail is disregard.
Jealous-Working-9454 t1_iset3ci wrote
And I would counter that not killing other humans on purpose is a natural law that I respect to the point of disregard for any country's law that may require it. Yours is an argument is support of lawful killing. You cannot possibly find a high ground here - except, perhaps, among killers.
ithriosa t1_isf146d wrote
>Yours is an argument is support of lawful killing.
Lawful killing is near necessary on some level. I am also against the death penalty, but I doubt you really believe what you are saying now. There are many lawful killings, I doubt you oppose all of them.
>You cannot possibly find a high ground here - except, perhaps, among killers.
There was a young girl in wisconsin who's parent were shot and killed. She was abducted by the killer and tortured and raped for multiple months. If she had been able to kill her captor would you say she took the low ground?
Since you think any killing should be considered unlawful, do you think she is a criminal?
>And I would counter that not killing other humans on purpose is a natural law that I respect to the point of disregard for any country's law that may require it
Sure it may be a natural sentiment. But it is not a law. Just because you think something is right does not make it a law. Many people think it is a natural law that killers be put to death, their feelings are not the same as law. Some people believe that rape is simply a natural part of humanity which women are overreacting to, and they would not vote to convict most rapists during trials. Some people believe that it is a natural law that whites are superior to others, and should not be punished as harshly.
Everyone thinks their own feelings are good, but luckily your feelings are not laws
I am not saying that you should not hold your views. But instead that it is reasonable that a state court rejects you as a juror given your disregard for the law which the court is established to uphold.
[deleted] t1_isd8xxc wrote
[removed]
Taysir385 t1_isbn3k2 wrote
> Jurors are not allowed to make decisions for any reason, they need to be based on the law in question.
The fact that a lawyer is often prohibited from discussing jury nullification does not mean that it doesn't exist. It is in fact a fundamental balancing part of the conceptual framework for the US legal system.
ithriosa t1_iscvxmx wrote
I did not say it does not exist.
>It is in fact a fundamental balancing part of the conceptual framework for the US legal system.
Do you think nullification was fine when it was very commonly used until relatively recently to make black people guilty of crimes they didn't commit?
Taysir385 t1_isczv5z wrote
> Do you think nullification was fine when it was very commonly used until relatively recently to make black people guilty of crimes they didn't commit?
The interesting thing about that is that a jury does not have the power to put someone on trial, only to adjudicate guilt. In order for this to happen, there first needs to be a police department that arrests the person, and then a prosecutor that chose to press that charge, and then a judge that didn't dismiss it as foundationless. So yeah, that's not great, but it's only a symptom of a system that is otherwise already 100% corrupt and broken. No, it wasn't fine, but that's also not an argument in any way against it existing no.
ithriosa t1_isdjxby wrote
>No, it wasn't fine, but that's also not an argument in any way against it existing no.
It is a pretty good argument against it. If a law is bad, then believing that a juror going rouge is not a proper or reliable remedy. That introduces huge amounts of bias which always puts vulnerable groups in danger. Many white individuals have achieved nullification that their black peers rarely would.
Instead of relying on a roll of the dice Rouge juror to "fix" a law (note that their definition of fixing may be negative) you should simply fix the problematic law.
Purposefully introducing additional bias into the system is a bad thing for any fair application of justice.
And it allows death penalty laws to survive longer than they should since a majority believe that it can only be applied to the dreaded "other people" due to nullification.
Taysir385 t1_isdki3e wrote
> Instead of relying on a roll of the dice Rouge juror to "fix" a law (note that their definition of fixing may be negative) you should simply fix the problematic law.
I agree that no one should 'rely' upon jury nullification, and we should also work wherever possible to strike unjust laws from the record.
But that also still isn't an argument against jury nullification existing.
ithriosa t1_isdliny wrote
>But that also still isn't an argument against jury nullification existing.
It is. Nullification is a bad thing for the US justice system and one reason why there are so many discrepancies between how different groups are sentenced. It introduces very significant bias which ripples across the other stages as well.
For instance it is harder to sentence a young handsome white Christian for rape or drug possession. This creates disparities in sentencing which are shielded from standard political review because the disparity of the overly harsh large are only felt by the vulnerable minorites. These groups do not have the voting power to reverse such laws.
If sentencing was more standard in the US, then many of the draconian laws would have been lightened or repealed a long time ago.
Taysir385 t1_isdnjqh wrote
So your argument is that we shouldn't allow a jury to have this power because we should rely on the integrity of the rest of the legal system? Bold strategy.
I'm happy to grant that in an idealized perfect world jury nullification is a silly unnecessary thing. But we don't live in an ideal world, and I'll trust twelve random people (or even twelve semi random people) with the pursuit of true justice far more than I'll trust any police officer or prosecutor. And as long as that's the case, jury nullification is fundamentally necessary, even if it suffers from the same societal biases that the rest of the legal system does.
ithriosa t1_isdrezo wrote
>that in an idealized perfect world jury nullification is a silly unnecessary thing. But we don't live in an ideal world
That is the opposite of what I am arguing. I am arguing that in a perfect ideal world nullification would be fine. However we don't live in such a world
>because we should rely on the integrity of the rest of the legal system? Bold strategy.
No. I am saying that practices such as nullification is a source of the lack of integrity. That it weakens the integrity
>even if it suffers from the same societal biases that the rest of the legal system does.
Even if it exaggerates and magnifies those biases?
Here is a serious question: would you be in favor of a law that said simply "white people are immune from the death penalty"?
You could argue that in a perfect world, such a rule would apply to all people, but in this imperfect world this is better than nothing.This is not a rhetorical question. Would you be in favor of that?
Taysir385 t1_isdv4a1 wrote
> .This is not a rhetorical question. Would you be in favor of that?
It's clearly a rhetorical question, because there's no just world where such a law is anything other than absurd.
It's clear we don't see eye to eye on this. I'm out. Be well, friend.
ithriosa t1_isewjt2 wrote
>It's clearly a rhetorical question,
It is not rhetorical. I was honestly not sure how you would answer. And I am surprised by your answer.
>there's no just world where such a law is anything other than absurd.
Sure no "just world" however we do not live in a perfectly just world.
Why is it absurd? By your prior logic it should be better than nothing. If you see the death penalty as an unjust law for which a juror should be able to prevent someone from facing for ANY reason, then what do you think is wrong with this? This offers an additional reason for which a person can avoid this unjust law
It seems fairly consistent with your prior reasoning.
>It's clear we don't see eye to eye on this. I'm out.
It is interesting that you leave the moment you think it is out of your favor. If you only talk with people who you see eye to eye with, then you are simply enforcing your own echo chamber.
Taysir385 t1_isft63s wrote
> It is interesting that you leave the moment you think it is out of your favor. If you only talk with people who you see eye to eye with, then you are simply enforcing your own echo chamber.
No friend, I left when you tried to change the discussion from general examination of jury nullification to specific arguments about unconscious racial bias and whether or not I support the death penalty.
EfficientStorage7190 t1_isczgyx wrote
Emmett Till's murderers got off on jury nullification. Sounds like the justice system was working as intended. /s
[deleted] t1_ise3up5 wrote
[deleted]
Anonuser123abc t1_isc0s8z wrote
Jurors are the final finders of fact during a trial. This absolutely includes jury nullification.
NemosGhost t1_isctafg wrote
> Jurors are not allowed to make decisions for any reason,
Yes they are and that's by design. Jury nullification was intentional and our founding fathers explicitly said that jurors are supposed to judge the facts and the law.
ithriosa t1_iscvfox wrote
Ah no wonder jurors who wish to do this need to in secret and by conspiracy. /s
[deleted] t1_isbecr8 wrote
[removed]
Ailly84 t1_isk8k3j wrote
That doesn’t make a lot of sense. This comes down to the question “does he deserve to die for what he did”. A jury should not be curated to get an answer of “yes” to that question.
ithriosa t1_iskaepj wrote
>A jury should not be curated to get an answer of “yes” to that question.
That is not what I am saying.
I am not saying that jurors should agree to the death penalty. I am saying that jurors should decide on the death penalty based on the law and evidence, rather than a pre-trial diametric opposition to the death penalty.
I think it would be just as bad to have a juror who believed pretrial that 100% of such cases should result in a death penalty. A juror who is already set in a decision without considering evidence or the law is clearly prejudiced against both the law and the case.
Ailly84 t1_islnb8y wrote
If the law said “murder = death penalty” then you’d be right. I don’t think it does. Correct me if I’m wrong though.
ithriosa t1_islod9q wrote
>If the law said “murder = death penalty” then you’d be right. I don’t think it does
Did you read anything i typed?
Again, you are stating the opposite point of what I am saying. I am NOT saying that the jurors need to vote for the death penalty.
Ailly84 t1_islr7kz wrote
I can’t go back to the original I replied to (can’t figure the app out…). I’m going to go with I misunderstood you. What I recall was a statement that people who wouldn’t vote yes on the death penalty coming into the case should be excluded from serving on the jury for that case. Maybe I’m wrong?
ithriosa t1_isltj6b wrote
>What I recall was a statement that people who wouldn’t vote yes on the death penalty coming into the case should be excluded from serving on the jury for that case. Maybe I’m wrong?
No, that is not what i stated.
1: I am saying that the jury can vote either yes or no. That is fine.
However, a potential or current juror who decided to vote either yes or no BEFORE attending the case should be excluded.
For instance, a person who is so opposed to the death penalty that they would never vote yes, or a person who thinks that all murders need to get the death penalty. These people should be excluded from the jury.
A juror should not vote yes coming In as they also should not vote no coming into the case. They need to base their decisions on the details of the case and the law. A juror who has already made their mind on a specific ruling before hearing any evidence or the law is unfit to be a juror and is removed.
2: In addition, a juror should vote yes or no based on the law and the evidence presented in the case. Rather than based on unrelated or inadmissable reasons such as the defendents race.
Ailly84 t1_isluhkl wrote
Yeah that’s what I remember.
Here’s the issue I have. Starting with point 2, the law doesn’t say anything about when someone SHOULD be executed, only which charges it can apply to. (Again, I think…)
From there, you get into a strange position when you start excluding people who are against the death penalty. You’re not looking at a random group of people anymore since you’ve just excluded slightly less than half the population.
ithriosa t1_islvwtw wrote
>Here’s the issue I have. Starting with point 2, the law doesn’t say anything about when someone SHOULD be executed, only which charges it can apply to. (Again, I think…)
Exactly. And the juror should not go into the case thinking the person SHOULD be executed.
>From there, you get into a strange position when you start excluding people who are against the death penalty.
It is not just that, it is also excluding people who have already decided that the death penalty should be applied.
>You’re not looking at a random group of people anymore since you’ve just excluded slightly less than half the population.
A jury is not supposed to be random. It is supposed to be people within the jurisdiction, who are willing to fairly consider both sides of the case and the law.
For instance, in a racist town, a majority of the people may be super racist and think a black defendant should be found guilty even before hearing any evidence. Even though those people are both random and representative does not mean they are fit to be the jury.
They need to be people willing to consider the case based on the evidence and the law. The juror should not be overly prejudiced toward a specific outcome before the case.
Ailly84 t1_islwugm wrote
I agree with all of that when you can make a fact based decision, so the guilt/innocence side of the discussion. When you start talking about something that is purely based in emotions (life without parole vs death), excluding those who are against death is putting a pretty heavy weight towards the jury deciding one way. I know you’d used the example of excluding both those who are 100% for and 100% against, but one of those groups makes up a pretty significant part of the population whereas I’m not really sure the other one actually exists.
ithriosa t1_islz46q wrote
>I agree with all of that when you can make a fact based decision, so the guilt/innocence side of the discussion. When you start talking about something that is purely based in emotions (life without parole vs death), excluding those who are against death is putting a pretty heavy weight towards the jury deciding one way.
It is supposed to be weighted toward the bounds of the law. If the law allows the pursuit of a death penalty, then the jury needs to be able to consider that.
The court is not a venue of public opinion. It is meant to uphold the law.
>but one of those groups makes up a pretty significant part of the population whereas I’m not really sure the other one actually exists.
For instance consider this. You live in a medium to small town and you get raped. They assemble a jury. Do you think it makes sense for them to allow the best friend of your alleged rapist to be on the jury? And on the other side it would not be appropriate for your best friend to be on the jury. Why? Because these people have already made their mind on the case.
So if 90% of your town are against you and will vote against your claim no matter what, that does not mean that the jury should also be biased in the same way.
Juries are not supposed to be random. They are supposed to be neutral. Not everyone is neutral. And in some cases most people are not neutral.
The court is meant to uphold the law. And the law affords both sides with rights. Neither side can have a fair trial if the jury is prejudiced toward one side from the outset.
This is why it can take the court a long time to assemble a jury in high profile cases. Because it is possible that 95% of the population is already prejudiced. However, the court needs to find the 5% which is neutral of the law and the case such that both sides can have a fair trial.
The purpose of a trial is NOT to uphold the rights of the jury. And it is NOT supposed to be fair for the jury. It is supposed to be fair and neutral for the defense and prosecution. The law has guaranteed that they have a fair trial within the law. And if only 5% of jurors are willing to allow a fair trial, then the court needs to find that 5%.
Even if 90% of your town would never consider your rape claim, and 7% would never consider your attackers claims of innocence, then it is the duty of the court to find the 3% who is willing to be neutral
[deleted] t1_isb8efa wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_isblvd6 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_isc4gbv wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ise39bs wrote
[deleted]
the-dasdardly-puppet t1_isb1xy7 wrote
It doesn't matter. Even if one vote felt coerced, all it took was one vote against death for him to avoid the death penalty. And they certainly had that.
barrinmw t1_isb27eh wrote
Looks like they had 3.
MrsJewbacca t1_isb9tkf wrote
I don't understand why that juror failed to raise this issue during deliberations. I mean, they are given VERY specific instructions. It seems like bullying, aggression, and coercion would be covered!
Jealous-Working-9454 t1_isbgh5u wrote
Because that juror has the sense to realize that a potential mistrial could give the state another chance to add him to the victim list. Just my guess.
KenTheAlbino t1_isbm1kq wrote
Nope. It is over. Jeopardy has attached. There is zero possibility of Mr. Cruz getting the death penalty regardless of what this juror has to say.
Jealous-Working-9454 t1_isbnpqk wrote
If that is the case then I hope she plays it for all it is worth. I picture angry people with a lust for vengeance just berating the shit out of her for having conviction. Maybe she can help point out that we have substituted a lust for vengeance and desire to cast blame on police for responsibilty and reason in our approach to our gun problem.
[deleted] t1_ise9vpg wrote
[removed]
Jaaawsh t1_iscac2j wrote
Are you a lawyer? I would think the judge would still be able to rule a mistrial because it’s technically not over yet. He has not actually been given his sentence and wont be until November.
KenTheAlbino t1_iscfe2q wrote
I am a lawyer. I practice criminal defense in Florida. The jury rendered a finding recommending life. The judge accepted the recommendation. Jeopardy has attached and there is no going back. Even if all three (it is being reported as three) life votes came out and said they were bullied into it (which I highly doubt was the case)- it would still be over when it comes to the death penalty.
But knowing what I know based upon experience- I can nearly guarantee that the person being bullied was a life vote. There were 9 death votes. And they knew they had to be unanimous in order to get death.
Mistrials are a tricky thing when it comes to double jeopardy (at least in Florida- I can only speak for where I am barred). The only real ways for the court to grant a mistrial without jeopardy attaching are 1) at the request of the defense, 2) a hung jury, or 3) extraordinary circumstances which would prevent the administration of justice.
In the case of Mr. Cruz, 1) the defense is not requesting it, 2) the jury did not hang- 1 life vote equals a life verdict in a penalty phase, and 3) even if they found one life juror bullied a death vote into life- it still would not result in manifest injustice as all you need is one life vote for a life verdict.
This is a nuanced issue and I hope I am explaining it in a way which can be understood. I am purposefully avoiding jargon and making it overly complicated.
Atkena2578 t1_iscgxmu wrote
Finally someone who spoke my mind. If you go on twitter, everyone thinks to seem that the "one holdout" (there were 3 who voted life) was the one who intimidated the other 2 to change their vote hence why she went ahead and wrote a note to judge to get ahead of complaints... and that makes no sense whatsoever. Usually the bullies are on the majority vote not the other way around. One juror gave CNN an interview (no the one who wrote the note) and says that she felt disrespected by others with her vote choice and that they just stood their ground and wanted to get out of there.
KenTheAlbino t1_iscmgi9 wrote
One life vote has no need to bully others. One life vote is a life verdict. It makes absolutely no sense for it to be the life vote bullying the death votes.
Atkena2578 t1_iscmoke wrote
I know, and to understand that you need common sense which twitter doesn't have
[deleted] t1_iscocqn wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_isct25j wrote
[removed]
Jealous-Working-9454 t1_iscavp4 wrote
No, i am not a lawyer but i also don't play one on tv. I don't know if the guy is right about jeopardy attached already but that is a thing so I will assume he isn't full of it. I do know the whole reason we are even talking about this is the American Gun Owner killed those kids.
Atkena2578 t1_ischf4z wrote
It is looking more and more like the jurors who are complaining so far are those who voted for life (one who tried to talk to judge, one who wrote a note and a third who was interviewedby cnn). They stood their ground tho so the verdict will stand and wasn't poisoned because of the intimidation
[deleted] t1_isd1yfr wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_isbk0hn wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_isbks3x wrote
[removed]
malektewaus t1_isbvlw9 wrote
I'm not a Christian, and for me, hypothetically, vengeance is reason enough. I'm a fan of the concept, and would gladly pay a little more in taxes to see people like this die. No need for it to be painless either, in fact I would prefer it if the execution was really excruciating. Scaphism or something.
I oppose the death penalty because the legal system is dildoes and I'm sure they get it wrong all the time, but an argument like yours tends to make me more, not less supportive of the idea. It's for vengeance, yes, and there are situations where vengeance is very good and appropriate, where human nature demands it.
nate6259 t1_isc0m0b wrote
I'm not sure what kind of experience the convicted person will have in prison but if it's rough and unpleasant, I might prefer that he spend the rest of his life knowing that he'll never be free. But it's hard to say how I'd feel if one of the victims were actually my family. Maybe I'd just want the murderer to no longer exist.
fiftyeleventimes t1_isca9zc wrote
Yep. This guy is a child murderer. He isn't going to have another good day in his life. I want him to endure it until he's ninety. And then die.
nate6259 t1_isd9nzh wrote
What got me the most is how he feigned sadness after the autopsy descriptions of one of the boys. Blatantly obvious he's putting on a show. Especially with his sarcasm and antics the entire rest of the time. Can't wait to see his shocked Pikachu face when he gets life.
equalsolstice t1_isbwe2z wrote
Especially when the criminal is 100% on camera guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt
[deleted] t1_isbosid wrote
[removed]
Randy_Tutelage t1_isbsm95 wrote
Well if tax payers are concerned with the cost to a tax payer it costs less to keep them in prison for life than to carry out the death penalty. The only way to make the death penalty cheaper than life imprisonment is to skip all the legal processes of appeals and kill the person after the conviction. Which in a case like this where there is no question as to whether he did it not, I understand the thought of people wanting to just say fuck it and have the guy killed. But that sets the precedent and someone else in the future will be screwed over if they aren't given the chance to appeal. So it does boggle the mind that death penalty is more costly than life imprisonment. But just skipping the appeals process to save money is just going to lead to an innocent person being killed by the state. The United States has executed multiple people who were later discovered to be innocent. And making it more likely that a person could be executed in error is not something that we should be comfortable with. Even one innocent person executed is a travesty. It does kinda suck tax payers have to pay for him to be alive but the alternative is inevitably going to lead to an innocent person murdered by the state.
sweetpeapickle t1_isbv95h wrote
Misconception is it costs more to "room & board" the person. No it costs more with the death penalty. Personally, & this is something that very well could change if it had been my loved one, but I would rather that person spend the rest of their lives behind bars. Because once they dead, they dead. They are not having to deal with anything. Of course if you believe in heaven & hell, you might think he will go to hell then. But that is a bit off base, since you should also believe it is up to God on what the judgement should be.
GizmoCheesenips t1_ise78ej wrote
He would have been spared the death penalty if I were sitting on that jury as well. I refuse to be another murderer.
DoctorTheWho t1_isdwfel wrote
I oppose the death penalty for many reasons, but one of my main ones, to quote Let's Go to Prison, is that too many juries are made up of people who are too dumb to find a way to get out of jury duty.
CSGOSucksMajorDick t1_isif45k wrote
I'm just proud to be a member of the American judicimal system. I mean...judaical. No...wait...Juidecimal system! Wait that ain't right...
swift_risk88 t1_ise7s2e wrote
Don't mistake bullying for disagreement, or worse... like saying something insane and being shocked by the response like their the normal one.
DarkJayson t1_ise05gm wrote
Its the one thing I never understood about a jury based justice system and that is that the jurys are not overseen by any kind of offical to make sure they are complying with the law. Its a trust based system that leads to stuff like this.
Not talking about someone who interacts with the Jury but someone impartial who stays in the room offers no imput but can report any violations of the law or a judges order back to the court for example if they where told not to discuss certain evidence and they start doing.
Simply a witness that the jurys deliberation happened within the law and as ordered.
[deleted] t1_isb7nmi wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_isbn9d2 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_isdjnzo wrote
[removed]
bigfoot_76 t1_isdqjyc wrote
Two words: jury nullification
[deleted] t1_iseepu9 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_isehfmu wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_isb25lf wrote
[removed]
ABinturong t1_ises9kn wrote
They should have presented the forecast taxpayer cost of life in prison for this guy to the jury during their considerations.
blklab16 t1_isha1bv wrote
I think it’s probably equivalent given the time and resources wasted on never ending appeals and such. It’s not like they march someone with with a death sentence right to the table and give the injection. Death row inmates can spend decades in prison anyway.
Personally I am in favor of the death penalty in this case, and only in cases like this (insert any of the recent mass shootings where the person was apprehended alive) where it is absolutely undeniable that the person on trial committed such heinous crimes. Either way though the drain on taxpayers is probably comparable.
Ailly84 t1_isk9xuc wrote
It actually costs much more to kill someone. And rightfully so. You not only need to be certain of guilt, but that the person received a fair trial.
I’m against the death penalty as it is 100% an emotional response to tragedy. There is no logical argument that supports it. The legal system can’t be working off emotions.
blklab16 t1_iskgndw wrote
I respect your view on the matter. Honestly it’s really easy for me to speak hypothetically but idk if I could sentence anyone to death if I were on a jury. Here’s hoping I’m never in that position!
Ailly84 t1_islnsm4 wrote
Thanks for the polite response there.
I’m definitely in the minority when it comes to compassion for murderers and their families. I can’t remove their humanity regardless of what they did.
Christ, even the Nazis in the bunker up to the end…I can’t help but try putting myself in their shoes. They’re extremely messed up people, but they’re still people.
[deleted] t1_isbkx7z wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_isdqgl8 wrote
[removed]
Jealous-Working-9454 t1_isbf3ee wrote
But we have to sentence mentally ill people to death so we can keep our guns! The foreman should have made her understand that. Sheesh. Oh, wait, at least we are giving a mentally ill man a life sentence in prison so we can keep our guns.
[deleted] t1_isctycl wrote
[removed]
ariceli t1_isbgbpv wrote
I served on a jury for a criminal case but not murder. There was a lot of bullying among jury members. Some were intimidated. I wasn’t and spoke up a lot but got shut down no matter what. It was a Friday and most jurors as well as the bailiff just wanted to go home. Very disappointing experience. I will NEVER serve again.