Free the Juice!

aloysious said:
You're right about the libertarian thing. I'm not lockstep with all the platform. Just most of it. I didn't say a vigilante govt. Just a vigilante if not the gubmint. (Google Bernard Goetz)
Click to expand...

How would you propose paying for a tribunal for every trial that occurs in our country considering our courts can't handle the caseload they have now?
 
cawacko said:
How would you propose paying for a tribunal for every trial that occurs in our country considering our courts can't handle the caseload they have now?
Click to expand...
Reduce number of trials. Serious tort reform is a good start. Besides a defendant can still request a judge trial like now.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
like i said, stop calling yourself a libertarian. you are the quintessential authoritarian conservative. stop masquerading
Click to expand...
Then I would have voted for Trump and not Johnson. Do I have to give up my libertarian voter registration card I've had since 1999?? Besides I'm more independent than anything. Libertarianism just happens to fit me better than authoritarian conservative. But not in regard to our legal system. Germany's works far better than ours. I've seen it. Like I said earlier, a few things gubmint does better. I'd rather have educated jurists than uneducated racists on the dole with a chip on their shoulder judge me if I were innocent on trial for a crime.
 
Last edited:
aloysious said:
Then I would have voted for Trump and not Johnson. Do I have to give up my libertarian voter registration card I've had since 1999?? Besides I'm more independent than anything. Libertarianism just happens to fit me better than authoritarian conservative. But not in regard to our legal system. Germany's works far better than ours. I've seen it. Like I said earlier, a few things gubmint does better. I'd rather have educated jurists than uneducated racists on the dole with a chip on their shoulder judge me if I were innocent on trial for a crime.
Click to expand...

you talk about having uneducated racists on a jury, but how the hell do you think those jurors sit on a jury? it's because GOVERNMENT (GUBMINT) put them there. yes, you should turn in your libertarian card. we do not need unfriendlies in our ranks.

who do you think is going to empanel these 'tribunals'?
 
Sounds like he should be freed for his criminal conviction service. Pretty confident he is an unconvicted murderer, however.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you talk about having uneducated racists on a jury, but how the hell do you think those jurors sit on a jury? it's because GOVERNMENT (GUBMINT) put them there. you should turn in your libertarian card. we do not need unfriendlies in our ranks.
Click to expand...
And you favor the govt. place uneducated racists on the dole that do not exhibit personal responsibility (personal responsibility being a hallmark of libertarianism) on a jury rather than the govt. place jurists that are specifically educated for the position with an advance degree. The only difference between you and me is you prefer govt. install incompetents with far less chance of personal responsibility. You are no libertarian yourself.
SmarterthanYou said:
who do you think is going to empanel these 'tribunals'?
Click to expand...
Govt. Who else?
 
aloysious said:
And you favor the govt. place uneducated racists on the dole that do not exhibit personal responsibility (personal responsibility being a hallmark of libertarianism) on a jury rather than the govt. place jurists that are specifically educated for the position with an advance degree. The only difference between you and me is you prefer govt. install incompetents with far less chance of personal responsibility. You are no libertarian yourself.
Govt. Who else?
Click to expand...

who are all these uneducated racists on the dole you feel occupy jury trials? has a study been done on this?
 
cawacko said:
who are all these uneducated racists on the dole you feel occupy jury trials? has a study been done on this?
Click to expand...
Once I'm anointed king I will do away with juries chosen by lawyers looking out for their own interests and install a tribunal system where the education requirement is a law degree and a two year fellowship in being an impartial jurist. No study needs to be done on this because there is no education requirement for jurists. Are all juries racist? Of course not. But if you were a tourist and inadvertently wandered into a housing project in New Orleans adjacent to the French Quarter and your life was threatened (happens in N.O. in fact there's little chance you'd walk out alive), you had a gun and killed the guy threatening your life, were placed on trial for murder, would you prefer to be judged by professional jurists or residents of the housing project?
The O.J. jury deliberated for how long? 4 hours? After a trial that lasted how long? lol
aloysious said:
Why do you say she was racist?
Click to expand...
Are you ever going to answer that?
 
aloysious said:
Once I'm anointed king I will do away with juries chosen by lawyers looking out for their own interests and install a tribunal system where the education requirement is a law degree and a two year fellowship in being an impartial jurist. No study needs to be done on this because there is no education requirement for jurists. Are all juries racist? Of course not. But if you were a tourist and inadvertently wandered into a housing project in New Orleans adjacent to the French Quarter and your life was threatened (happens in N.O. in fact there's little chance you'd walk out alive), you had a gun and killed the guy threatening your life, were placed on trial for murder, would you prefer to be judged by professional jurists or residents of the housing project?
The O.J. jury deliberated for how long? 4 hours? After a trial that lasted how long? lolAre you ever going to answer that?
Click to expand...

Prisons are full of black men who were convicted of murder by majority black juries. The idea that a black jury wouldn't convict a black person is to not understand the black community.

I've watched the OJ: Made In America a couple of times. I saw the interview with jurors. That was a once in a lifetime case.
 
cawacko said:
Prisons are full of black men who were convicted of murder by majority black juries. The idea that a black jury wouldn't convict a black person is to not understand the black community.
Click to expand...
Mostly juries get it right. If outcomes were as consistently bad as the medical malpractice lawsuits by John Edwards or the O.J. trial there'd have to be a serious change. And there was in North Carolina. I've seen the system in Germany having lived there for three yrs., my wife is from there and she agrees, the legal system there is far better than here.
cawacko said:
I've watched the OJ: Made In America a couple of times. I saw the interview with jurors. That was a once in a lifetime case.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that is an excuse for the outcome.
Now how is Jackie Glass a racist? Couldn't find anything myself.
 
aloysious said:
Mostly juries get it right. If outcomes were as consistently bad as the medical malpractice lawsuits by John Edwards or the O.J. trial there'd have to be a serious change. And there was in North Carolina. I've seen the system in Germany having lived there for three yrs., my wife is from there and she agrees, the legal system there is far better than here.
I don't believe that is an excuse for the outcome.
Now how is Jackie Glass a racist? Couldn't find anything myself.
Click to expand...

But you were just arguing you'd be f'd if you were killed in a New Orleans housing project yet people from the projects are sent to jail all the time.

The Nevada jury misbehaved during the trial showing obvious bias against OJ and her 33 year sentence was specifically because of the $33mm he owes. Her comment after that karma caught up to him showed obvious bias against the prior actions which weren't on trial.
 
cawacko said:
But you were just arguing you'd be f'd if you were killed in a New Orleans housing project yet people from the projects are sent to jail all the time.
Click to expand...
Who wouldn't be f'd if they were killed? I believe in some cases where racial differences are involved juries are not impartial and take race into account. This certainly happened in the O.J. trial where it became a trial of the L.A. police and not OJ.
cawacko said:
The Nevada jury misbehaved during the trial showing obvious bias against OJ
Click to expand...
And you think that was because he was black and not because he got away with murder?? How naive.
cawacko said:
and her 33 year sentence was specifically because of the $33mm he owes. Her comment after that karma caught up to him showed obvious bias against the prior actions which weren't on trial.
Click to expand...
You just said it right there. The bias was because of his getting away with murder, not being black. You can speculate the correlation of 1 yr/$1million I guess. That still has nothing to do with racial bias. If I were judge I'd take into account what his sentence should have been for premeditated murder if I had that leeway. And she did apparently. And the parole board didn't give him any slack in previous hearings. I guess they took his previous actions into acct. also. He got off pretty well I'd say. And yes karma did catch up to him. But not completely.
 
aloysious said:
Who wouldn't be f'd if they were killed? I believe in some cases where racial differences are involved juries are not impartial and take race into account. This certainly happened in the O.J. trial where it became a trial of the L.A. police and not OJ. And you think that was because he was black and not because he got away with murder?? How naive. You just said it right there. The bias was because of his getting away with murder, not being black. You can speculate the correlation of 1 yr/$1million I guess. That still has nothing to do with racial bias. If I were judge I'd take into account what his sentence should have been for premeditated murder if I had that leeway. And she did apparently. And the parole board didn't give him any slack in previous hearings. I guess they took his previous actions into acct. also. He got off pretty well I'd say. And yes karma did catch up to him. But not completely.
Click to expand...

OJ was a once in a lifetime occurrence.

Should the race of juries only be the same as the defendant?
 
aloysious said:
Agreed. In the end far worse outcomes have occured.
Of course not. The only way to correct for possible racial bias I can think of is a tribunal.
Click to expand...

But who's to say people on a tribunal can put aside their biases? Educated people still have biases. Educated people can still be racist.

And as an aside who would want to go to law school and spend their career on a tribunal? There are criminal trials everyday all over the country. No way there would be that many people to sit on a tribunal who fit graduated law school.
 
cawacko said:
But who's to say people on a tribunal can put aside their biases? Educated people still have biases. Educated people can still be racist.
Click to expand...
But it would reduce the possibility and probability.
cawacko said:
And as an aside who would want to go to law school and spend their career on a tribunal? There are criminal trials everyday all over the country. No way there would be that many people to sit on a tribunal who fit graduated law school.
Click to expand...
lol most cities of any size could use a separate phone book only for lawyers. There's plently that would be more than happy to do a two yr. fellowship just to make a living.
 
aloysious said:
And you favor the govt. place uneducated racists on the dole that do not exhibit personal responsibility (personal responsibility being a hallmark of libertarianism) on a jury rather than the govt. place jurists that are specifically educated for the position with an advance degree. The only difference between you and me is you prefer govt. install incompetents with far less chance of personal responsibility. You are no libertarian yourself.

Govt. Who else?
Click to expand...

you really are clueless. when a jury is empaneled, it is the result of BOTH a prosecutor AND a defense attorney vetting the prospective jurists. the 'gubmint' is not placing them solely at their choosing. What's ludicrous is allowing a judge to remove a juror based upon their ability to independently think for themselves. judges do NOT want jurists who are smart. only jurists who can follow directions.

you're really losing this argument. again, allowing govt to take over the jury system and empanel a tribunal puts govt completely in charge. we the people will lose automatically, but as an authoritative conservative, i'm sure this prospect is pleasing to you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top