Greg wrote:armedwalleye wrote:Dunno what it would take, but I would point out that he'll be judged by a jury of his peers...none of which were smart enough to get out of jury duty.
People always say stuff like this and then wonder why we get so many weird jury decisions. The whole system depends on reasonable jurors.
How would you like to end up in court after a defensive shooting and be judged by a jury "none of which were smart enough to get out of jury duty".
I've only done one trial as juror but I'd do it again.
Greg
Rodentman wrote:I think jury trials are not impartial. With jury nullification the case becomes about convincing a jury, not finding the truth. I'd rather see trial by a tribunal of judges who know the law, the rules of evidence, and are less likely to be swayed by public opinion.
Rodentman wrote:I think jury trials are not impartial. With jury nullification the case becomes about convincing a jury, not finding the truth. I'd rather see trial by a tribunal of judges who know the law, the rules of evidence, and are less likely to be swayed by public opinion.
Holland&Holland wrote:Rodentman wrote:I think jury trials are not impartial. With jury nullification the case becomes about convincing a jury, not finding the truth. I'd rather see trial by a tribunal of judges who know the law, the rules of evidence, and are less likely to be swayed by public opinion.
That sounds scary as heck.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests