- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
re: Unanimous Juries- How ya votin and why?
Posted on 10/26/18 at 2:07 pm to The Johnny Lawrence
Posted on 10/26/18 at 2:07 pm to The Johnny Lawrence
i don't see how someone with any sort of moral compass OR respect for law could defend non-unanimous juries
3
Posted on 10/26/18 at 2:07 pm to The Johnny Lawrence
quote:
I've been on the fence all week. I've reached out to a bunch of people to get their takes in an effort to formulate my opinion. Figured I'd get the opinions of the Board, as well.
I'll leave all y'all with this quote by English jurist William Blackstone: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." All I have to say about that.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 2:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:I don't see how anyone with a brain OR respect for the law would demand unanimous juries.
i don't see how someone with any sort of moral compass OR respect for law could defend non-unanimous juries
Posted on 10/26/18 at 2:09 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
I don't see how anyone with a brain OR respect for the law would demand unanimous juries.
what don't you understand, comrade?
Posted on 10/26/18 at 2:11 pm to Gaspergou202
quote:
How Constitutional? Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 (1972) SCOTUS.
Mad respect you're actually citing a case's reporter volume number and page on a frickING MESSAGE BOARD
Posted on 10/26/18 at 2:12 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:It could mean a number of things. Just because one had doubts doesn't automatically make those doubts reasonable.
Do you think a juror voting no means he has reasonable doubts?
If this one person did have reasonable doubt, what does that say about the other 11?
Posted on 10/26/18 at 2:13 pm to The Johnny Lawrence
The state taking punitive action towards a private citizen is a very heavy thing and should have as many safeguards as possible and that should mean an unanimous jury convicting a suspect and that is portraying the belief of the jury as beyond a reasonable doubt.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 2:16 pm to LSURussian
quote:
A jury voting 10-2 to convict on non-capital offense cases is okay with me.
So you would be ok with 2 jurors having reasonable doubt and the suspect having his freedom taken away and getting an assload of prison time to the tune of multiple decades?
Spending multiple decades in prison is something that should require an unanimous jury.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 2:17 pm to Sentrius
What part of "is okay with me" confuses you??
Posted on 10/26/18 at 2:18 pm to Sentrius
quote:
The state taking punitive action towards a private citizen is a very heavy thing and should have as many safeguards as possible and that should mean an unanimous jury convicting a suspect and that is portraying the belief of the jury as beyond a reasonable doubt.
BOO YAH
Posted on 10/26/18 at 2:22 pm to The Johnny Lawrence
You guys voting No realize that a hung jury doesn’t mean the accused just walks, right? The prosecution gets to try them again.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 2:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Nothing. I think you are very confused.
what don't you understand, comrade?
Posted on 10/26/18 at 2:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i don't see how someone with any sort of moral compass OR respect for law could defend non-unanimous juries
I’m not sure how to defend a statement so absolute. Frankly, I’m surprised that, given your normal well out thought posts, you haven’t expanded on this.
My first reaction to unanimous juries was unquestionably for, and I don’t blame or criticize anyone that also feels that way. But as I looked into and gave it more thought, I’m not sure how you can so staunchly lean one way, especially against. For instance, I personally had trouble rectifying the stats on wrongful convictions with the added efficiency of the court system. I think the statistics i read had LA ranked 18th best in wrongful convictions average per case among states. In fact, all of the data pointed to LA being completely average when it came to wrongful convictions any way it was analyzed. I will admit, that I’m pretty sure the studies were quoted by anti-unanimous jury proponents, so there could be some biases. But, I have not heard an argument against that had hard facts backing up the injustices that are presumed. To me this situation feels like a Freakanomics-esque problem where we might assume one outcome, but the statistics give a different story, and I’m open to either side. I just lean to the, “if it ain’t broke” philosophy.
One stat that I can see argued both for and against was that LA jury’s deliberations were an hour shorter than the national average. That can be seen as both a good or bad thing, but I haven’t personally decided whether I think it’s good or bad.
I’m not saying one side is right, I’m so far on the fence that I’m choosing not to vote on this issue. I just don’t believe your broad, sweeping statements are helpful for learning or discourse.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 2:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i don't see how someone with any sort of moral compass OR respect for law could defend non-unanimous juries
How? Because there are people out there with a moral compass in the other direction. There is a POLITICAL, RACIALLY driven reason for wanting to go to a unanimous jury:
Racial-Based Jury Nullification
examples:
"... jury nullification gives jurors a special power to send the message that black lives matter. If they think that the police are treating African Americans unfairly — by engaging in racial profiling or using excessive force — they don’t have to convict, even if they think the defendant is guilty..
-- Paul Butler, criminal law professor and proponent of race and jury nullification.
"As we’ve learned, it only takes one person out of 12 to neuter the justice system. One person out of 12 who recognizes that the system itself is on trial, every trial, and it is guilty. White people have rendered this country INCAPABLE of holding police officers accountable."
Elie Mystal, editor of Above the Law and the Legal Editor for More Perfect
Posted on 10/26/18 at 2:45 pm to The Johnny Lawrence
There is always one in every bunch. It's a prosecutor's Mulligan.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 2:46 pm to CoachChappy
quote:
I voted no. The Supreme Court has ruled that 9-3 juries are good enough. 10-2 is fine with me.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that abortion, gay marriage, and access to contraception are federally-protected rights despite that no one can find them in the Constitution, use better logic than that, buddy.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 2:51 pm to BRich
quote:
How? Because there are people out there with a moral compass in the other direction. There is a POLITICAL, RACIALLY driven reason for wanting to go to a unanimous jury:
The rule itself was created to limit the power of blacks on juries after the civil war and Jim Crow.
ETA: How about holding prosecutors in LA to the same standard as everyone else?
This post was edited on 10/26/18 at 2:52 pm
Posted on 10/26/18 at 3:00 pm to 337Tiger19
quote:
The rule itself was created to limit the power of blacks on juries after the civil war and Jim Crow.
ETA: How about holding prosecutors in LA to the same standard as everyone else?
I'm straight up shocked there are people out there who want the system in Louisiana to remain this way instead of making it harder for the government to take someone's liberty. The government stripping someone of their liberty's a very big deal and has resounding familial consequences that transfer generation to generation in a negative way logically. I would surmise, in a freedom-based country like ours, the qualified electors would stomp their feet and bang the table in support of making it harder for the government to take a private citizen's freedom. If the people on this board were criminal defendants, I'd presume they'd want this safeguard in place with their freedom and future livelihoods at stake. Oh well.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 3:03 pm to LSURussian
I voted no. 10 out of 12 is good enough. Unanimous would allow dindu's to get off.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 3:07 pm to ThePTExperience1969
But you also need 12-0 to find you not guilty to avoid a hung jury. Isn’t that a problem too? That you can’t get out of the governments sights with only 10-2 now? How many not guilty verdicts do you think are unanimous?
Again, not saying correct, but trying argue both sides
Again, not saying correct, but trying argue both sides
Page 4 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News