- 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
My explanation for voting against having a unanimous jury
Posted on 11/6/18 at 9:20 am
Posted on 11/6/18 at 9:20 am
When I was in college I worked for a retail store at Tanger Outlet Mall in Gonzales.
One day, a black guy walked into the store, slipped into the stockroom while nobody was looking and I saw him walk out with his baggy pants FULL of clothes from the back.
At the same time, everyone else saw him too. We couldn't legally stop him so we just watched him as he walked out then called the cops.
When the cops arrived they asked for a description of him. I, along with every employee who saw him, along with MULTIPLE customers (most of whom were also black) all told the cops he was a black male and what he was wearing.
Then, one employee who had a huge reputation for being very, very racist, told the cops "Nah uh, that man wasn't black. I'm telling y'all he wasn't black. I don't know why everyone is saying he was, they must be racist or something but he wasn't black".
I don't want to have a unanimous jury for felony convictions because it's always possible that some racist Louisianian is on that jury, whether they're black or white, that could hold up a conviction just due to race.
I'm not having that.
One day, a black guy walked into the store, slipped into the stockroom while nobody was looking and I saw him walk out with his baggy pants FULL of clothes from the back.
At the same time, everyone else saw him too. We couldn't legally stop him so we just watched him as he walked out then called the cops.
When the cops arrived they asked for a description of him. I, along with every employee who saw him, along with MULTIPLE customers (most of whom were also black) all told the cops he was a black male and what he was wearing.
Then, one employee who had a huge reputation for being very, very racist, told the cops "Nah uh, that man wasn't black. I'm telling y'all he wasn't black. I don't know why everyone is saying he was, they must be racist or something but he wasn't black".
I don't want to have a unanimous jury for felony convictions because it's always possible that some racist Louisianian is on that jury, whether they're black or white, that could hold up a conviction just due to race.
I'm not having that.
7
Posted on 11/6/18 at 9:22 am to Wayne Kenoff
Oh so you’d rather innocent people go to prison than an anomaly letting an obviously guilty person go free rarely.
Makes perfect sense
Makes perfect sense
Posted on 11/6/18 at 9:22 am to Wayne Kenoff
We have one of the highest per capita prison populations in the world
If you think that one of America's vexing problems is not enough convictions you've got life all fricked up
If you think that one of America's vexing problems is not enough convictions you've got life all fricked up
Posted on 11/6/18 at 9:22 am to Wayne Kenoff
Yuuuup
Just takes one.
Remember, the defendant can appeal. The state can't retry.
Just takes one.
Remember, the defendant can appeal. The state can't retry.
Posted on 11/6/18 at 9:23 am to Wayne Kenoff
Sorry,
I prefer people like that getting out, rather than people that are innocent going in.
I prefer people like that getting out, rather than people that are innocent going in.
Posted on 11/6/18 at 9:25 am to Mr.Perfect
quote:
Just takes one.
Remember, the defendant can appeal. The state can't retry.
Exactly. There's a system in place for wrongly convicted citizens. There's also a law in place against retrying people.
I'd rather the state pay a settlement to a wrongly convicted person after they get exonerated than have a guilty person roaming the streets, unable to be tried again.
Posted on 11/6/18 at 9:25 am to Mr.Perfect
just takes one for a hung jury, and the state can retry.
Posted on 11/6/18 at 9:25 am to Wayne Kenoff
1) Eyewitness testimony is the one of the WORST kinds of evidence
2) Jury Verdict =/= "eyewitness account agreement"
2) Jury Verdict =/= "eyewitness account agreement"
Posted on 11/6/18 at 9:26 am to Mr.Perfect
I’m fine with a shoplifter walking free (the bill is for felonies btw, not sure if your example would count) if it decreases the likelihood of an innocent person being incarcerated. Depriving one of their freedom is literally the worst thing the state can do to an individual. They have the monopoly of force and resources, we should make it as hard for the state as possible.
Posted on 11/6/18 at 9:27 am to Powerman
quote:
We have one of the highest per capita prison populations in the world
If you think that one of America's vexing problems is not enough convictions you've got life all fricked up
We have a problem with incarcerating too many people for low level and non-violent crimes.
We also have a problem with solving and convicting violent crimes at an acceptable rate.
These two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
Posted on 11/6/18 at 9:27 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
1) Eyewitness testimony is the one of the WORST kinds of evidence
2) Jury Verdict =/= "eyewitness account agreement"
My point is that it just takes one racist person to refuse to convict an obviously guilty party just based on race. Whether they're white or black -- racism exists in all races.
Posted on 11/6/18 at 9:27 am to Mr.Perfect
quote:
Remember, the defendant can appeal.
And almost certainly fail, because the standard is so high.
quote:
The state can't retry.
Wrong. A hung jury is a mistrial, not an acquittal. The State can try the case as many times as necessary to get a verdict.
Posted on 11/6/18 at 9:28 am to Wayne Kenoff
quote:
I don't want to have a unanimous jury for felony convictions because it's always possible that some racist Louisianian is on that jury, whether they're black or white, that could hold up a conviction just due to race.
Jury nullification is a part of the jury process.
If you fear that then your problem is with the jury process not the jury itself.
I like to think it should be difficult to convict someone, and that asking more of govt is the responsibility of every citizen.
Posted on 11/6/18 at 9:30 am to Powerman
quote:
We have one of the highest per capita prison populations in the world
Easy fix. Three strike rule. After three frick ups you dont get life in prison, you dont get the death penalty, you lose your citizenship and we drop you off in third world Africa. Good luck.
Posted on 11/6/18 at 9:30 am to Wayne Kenoff
quote:
Exactly. There's a system in place for wrongly convicted citizens. There's also a law in place against retrying people.
"Let the system figure it out" what could go wrong?
Lots of small govt conservatives in here today.
Posted on 11/6/18 at 9:30 am to Wayne Kenoff
Lesser crimes such as felony theft require a 6 person jury, all of which must agree on the verdict. That's always been the case. The proposed amendment doesn't change that.
Posted on 11/6/18 at 9:36 am to Powerman
quote:
We have one of the highest per capita prison populations in the world
Among functional countries that have working judicial systems and have accurate records we have the most diversity. Our diversity has a very high propensity to crime.
Convicting criminals isn't racist.
Posted on 11/6/18 at 9:38 am to HoopyD
quote:
Lesser crimes such as felony theft require a 6 person jury, all of which must agree on the verdict. That's always been the case. The proposed amendment doesn't change that.
Factually correct.
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News