- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Law proposed to require unanimous decision for felonies
Posted on 4/5/18 at 9:01 am
Posted on 4/5/18 at 9:01 am
NOLA.com
Everyone deserves due process. However, requiring unanimous agreement among jurors, in such a diverse demographic, is a dangerous precedent. Thankfully, it will go to a statewide vote if passed. This would mean that one juror can essentially control the whole verdict.
quote:
Currently, felony trials in Louisiana can be decided when 10 of 12 jurors agree on a person's guilt. Only Louisiana and Oregon allow felony cases to be settled by a split verdict. Morrell, a New Orleans Democrat, says the non-unanimous jury policy began to minimize power of African-American jurors and maintain white supremacy in Louisiana.
Everyone deserves due process. However, requiring unanimous agreement among jurors, in such a diverse demographic, is a dangerous precedent. Thankfully, it will go to a statewide vote if passed. This would mean that one juror can essentially control the whole verdict.
21
Posted on 4/5/18 at 9:04 am to Areddishfish
It's bullshite that we have juries at all when lawyers can stack them with people to let the criminals off. Plus I ain't got time to go sit in a courtroom and make 75 cents a day
Let the cops and judges decide who's guilty. It's pretty easy to tell when someone is a criminal
Let the cops and judges decide who's guilty. It's pretty easy to tell when someone is a criminal
Posted on 4/5/18 at 9:04 am to Areddishfish
quote:
says the non-unanimous jury policy began to minimize power of African-American jurors and maintain white supremacy in Louisiana
Is this really the only argument they know? Hell, I think they could find a way to say that Louisiana potholes are there to minimize the power of blacks.
Posted on 4/5/18 at 9:06 am to el Gaucho
quote:
Let the cops and judges decide who's guilty. It's pretty easy to tell when someone is a criminal
Posted on 4/5/18 at 9:12 am to Areddishfish
quote:
However, requiring unanimous agreement among jurors, in such a diverse demographic, is a dangerous precedent
How does a conviction when 1 out of 6 jurors disagrees comport with due process? It doesn't. It is astonishing that a state would even think about incarcerating someone for the rest of his or her life when 2 jurors disagreed with the verdict.
Posted on 4/5/18 at 9:12 am to Areddishfish
quote:
a New Orleans Democrat, says the non-unanimous jury policy began to minimize power of African-American jurors and maintain white supremacy in Louisiana.
No, what it actually does is minimizes the power of a black juror whose ONLY basis for a not guilty vote is because the defendant is black. While most jurors genuinely try to do the right thing, there are some that flat don't give a shite what the evidence shows. They are not going to vote guilty for a black defendant strictly based on skin color. I've seen that happen on more than a few occasions where a defendant who was overwhelming guilty of a crime (as in 11 jurors took less than 15 minutes to reach that conclusion), but you had one holdout who refused to budge or even listen to the evidence. If not for the less than unanimous rule, that defendant would have been acquitted.
I suspect this may be a compromise bill where they try to get the number to 11-1, but going full unanimous would be a BAD idea.
Posted on 4/5/18 at 9:14 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
How does a conviction when 1 out of 6 jurors disagrees comport with due process? It doesn't. It is astonishing that a state would even think about incarcerating someone for the rest of his or her life when 2 jurors disagreed with the verdict.
We won’t need Judge Whites anymore then.
Posted on 4/5/18 at 9:15 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
How does a conviction when 1 out of 6 jurors disagrees
12 jurors bucko. So 11 can be convinced that the person is guilty and 1 can cause the case to be a hung jury. If the OJ trial didn't teach you anything on this, I don't know what will.
Posted on 4/5/18 at 9:15 am to Areddishfish
quote:
This would mean that one juror can essentially control the whole verdict.
This is exactly why I think it should be left at 10 of 12 (except unanimous for handing down the death penalty)
Posted on 4/5/18 at 9:16 am to Areddishfish
quote:
This would mean that one juror can essentially control the whole verdict.
Yep. I've served on juries a few times and noted that with a certain demographic the dindu nuffin philosophy prevails even when presented with solid evidence.
ETA-ALT26 (above) said it better.
This post was edited on 4/5/18 at 9:19 am
Posted on 4/5/18 at 9:19 am to Tiger Prawn
quote:
This is exactly why I think it should be left at 10 of 12 (except unanimous for handing down the death penalty)
Agreed. The whole trial process, if occurring in a vacuum is actually a perfect deal. However, people have made up their minds before any evidence is presented. The trial is really just a show to convince the public that everyone was given a chance in the matter.
Posted on 4/5/18 at 9:19 am to Areddishfish
quote:2/12 = 1/6
12 jurors bucko.
Posted on 4/5/18 at 9:20 am to Areddishfish
quote:
So 11 can be convinced that the person is guilty and 1 can cause the case to be a hung jury.
And 11 people can decide that convicting someone with insufficient evidence is ok so long as they make it home for supper, while the 1 holdout actually honors his or her jury oath and abides by the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
Posted on 4/5/18 at 9:21 am to Areddishfish
quote:
Only Louisiana and Oregon allow felony cases to be settled by a split verdict.
48 states require unanimous decisions. What's the problem?
Posted on 4/5/18 at 9:21 am to el Gaucho
quote:
Let the cops and judges decide who's guilty. It's pretty easy to tell when someone is a criminal
I hope you're trolling
Posted on 4/5/18 at 9:22 am to Areddishfish
quote:
However, requiring unanimous agreement among jurors, in such a diverse demographic, is a dangerous precedent.
It is literally the standard everywhere but backwards-arse Louisiana.
ETA: And OR I guess. So not literally.
This post was edited on 4/5/18 at 9:24 am
Posted on 4/5/18 at 9:23 am to Paluka
quote:
48 states require unanimous decisions. What's the problem?
If 48 states are doing anything different than Louisiana, then I would presume Louisiana is the one fricking it up.
Posted on 4/5/18 at 9:24 am to celltech1981
quote:
I hope you're trolling
quote:
el Gaucho
Posted on 4/5/18 at 9:24 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
2/12 = 1/6
Yeah, when discussing a court case, nobody words it like that, except dude above. It's viewed in terms of 12.
Posted on 4/5/18 at 9:27 am to Areddishfish
I'd be 100% cool with this if it were for drug offenses.
War of Drugs is failing. Giving drug offenders felonies just entrenches them further into that lifestyle with no way out.
War of Drugs is failing. Giving drug offenders felonies just entrenches them further into that lifestyle with no way out.
Page 1 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News