Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That’s why I think going before a panel of no less than five lawyers would be fairer than the so called jury of your peers. Your “peers” are usually not educated enough to make such decisions
That's backwards. Unfortunately the us legal system has elevated lawyers and judges (who are just lawyers with a different title) to the equivalent of a modern day priesthood. The code, like the Bible before Calvin, is full of Latin that the laity can't understand. If the law is so exceptionally complicated that normal people can't be expected to understand it, then the problem is not with the people, the problem is with the legal system.
If the law is too complicated for a jury to understand then how, as normal people, can the citizenry be expected to stay on the right side of the law in the first place?
It is said that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but how can that be acceptable in a free society where the only people who understand the law are those who specialize in it?
In a criminal trial it's pretty easy to make yourself an undesirable juror. Among the things I heard that got jurors excused the last time I was called for jury duty (Hispanic gang member on trial for murder):
1) I was beat up by Mexicans when I was a kid and I hate them
2) A close family member was murdered by a gang member
3) I understand the doctrine of presumption of innocence, but I don't believe it applies in this case because that defendant looks guilty as hell (I was going to blurt this out if I got questioned, but they filled the jury and two alternates before it got to me)
By the way, the defense's strategy was to try to convince the jury that all six cops who witnessed the shooting had mistakenly identified the wrong suspect, even though they were all very familiar with the shooter, having arrested him many times over the past several years.
That's backwards. Unfortunately the us legal system has elevated lawyers and judges (who are just lawyers with a different title) to the equivalent of a modern day priesthood. The code, like the Bible before Calvin, is full of Latin that the laity can't understand. If the law is so exceptionally complicated that normal people can't be expected to understand it, then the problem is not with the people, the problem is with the legal system.
If the law is too complicated for a jury to understand then how, as normal people, can the citizenry be expected to stay on the right side of the law in the first place?
It is said that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but how can that be acceptable in a free society where the only people who understand the law are those who specialize in it?
Apples and oranges, but I don't disagree. I think we should always ask if someone is a lawyer before we vote for them. But that's not what I'm saying about trials. Average people vote their prejudices, not the law, no matter how easy it is. Lawyers might not be any different, so that's why you need at least five. IMO judges are just people who couldn't make a living as lawyers, which means they are bad lawyers to begin with. I honestly believe judges take bribes, mostly from lawyers, even if only in the form of campaign donations. Judges should be appointed for a term, then replaced.
In my experience, there were always two sides to every story, and neither was cut and dry. It's really hard to weigh the evidence presented in court and arrive at the correct decision. Look at OJ. Is he or isn't he guilty? We don't know because we didn't see everything that was presented in trial.
Because of the rules of the court, LOTS of relevant evidence is never shown in the court room. Remember, the prosecution is trying not to lose the case while the defender is (sometimes) trying to not lose the case. Somewhere in all their posturing the truth gets tainted.
OJ is guilty. He was guilty in the murders of Nicole and Ron and he is guilty of kidnapping. HOWEVER, 12 counts? That is just the DA piling it on to be sure he got the time he missed getting in LA. And, Bonaventure gave them all 12 counts. No one else in his position, that is an unknown, would have gotten ALL 12 counts bound over to District court. BTW, kidnapping is defined as "removing, detaining & concealing" a person in some fashion. By OJ on tape saying "nobody leaves this room" rises to 1 count of kidnapping. I was surprised the DA actually knew what kidnapping was! The idiots in the DA's office didn't seem to care when my child was kidnapped by the ex. Maybe they should read NRS 200.359.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzz123
The state must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a person is guilty. After hearing what a judge says about what constitutes reasonable doubt you'll be wishing you had gone to law school. Even the explanation of it by a judge is very hard to understand.
OMG, where do I even start with this? Beyond a reasonable doubt. I SO wish I could believe in this as EVIDENCE is supposed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty, but in many cases the evidence is quashed and never presented. "Witnesses" it has been shown are mistaken 70% of the time. Yet, the court system relies on 'witness' testimony.
I witnessed a pre-crime event in my home city. A 12yo girl was shot and killed just seconds after I walked into a store. The DA's 'key' witness testified he was with the shooter that night. The defendant's got life for murder with special circumstances. 13 years later they reopened the case because someone found that the 'key' witness was actually in juvenile lock up the night the girl was killed. The DA said, "We can't verify witness' whereabouts." ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! You would think they would verify their 'key' witness!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzz123
That’s why I think going before a panel of no less than five lawyers would be fairer than the so called jury of your peers.
That is pretty much the French court system. I was pretty impressed when I read about their system where 3 judges hear the evidence, ask questions, really get involved in the case, even investigations. Seriously, it seemed, on the surface, a lot more fair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzz123
So if it is a minor inconvenience to us, think of what it is to the person on trial.
A catastrophe given the scenario you just described. Stupid lawyer/judges and stupid jurors. A defendant really has no chance UNLESS you educate yourself and work WITH the lawyer defending you OR represent yourself. A LOT of people would never represent themselves in a court room. Personally, I might be an exception, but I think a person representing themselves have a much better chance than to put their faith in a jerk lawyer IMHO. As a person that has endured 6 years of litigation with an ex-spouse and countless court appearances, I make those bastards work for their money.
I'm sure you can tell I have the utmost respect for the lawyers and lawyer/judges.
Last edited by sierramadre44; 10-25-2009 at 11:24 PM..
That's backwards. Unfortunately the us legal system has elevated lawyers and judges (who are just lawyers with a different title) to the equivalent of a modern day priesthood. The code, like the Bible before Calvin, is full of Latin that the laity can't understand. If the law is so exceptionally complicated that normal people can't be expected to understand it, then the problem is not with the people, the problem is with the legal system.
If the law is too complicated for a jury to understand then how, as normal people, can the citizenry be expected to stay on the right side of the law in the first place?
It is said that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but how can that be acceptable in a free society where the only people who understand the law are those who specialize in it?
Apples and oranges, but I don't disagree. I think we should always ask if someone is a lawyer before we vote for them. But that's not what I'm saying about trials. Average people vote their prejudices, not the law, no matter how easy it is. Lawyers might not be any different, so that's why you need at least five. IMO judges are just people who couldn't make a living as lawyers, which means they are bad lawyers to begin with. I honestly believe judges take bribes, mostly from lawyers, even if only in the form of campaign donations. Judges should be appointed for a term, then replaced.
If I am not mistaken, you HAVE to hold a law degree before you can run for a judgeship. I agree very much that some judges can't make it as lawyers. I've often said if some of them were doctors there would be multiple malpractice lawsuits. But, people are not even educated enough to sue the darn crummy lawyer! So they keep on screwing up and hurting peoples lives with their own ignorance.
I had a lawyer once in the 6 years I've been in litigation and it took me 5 months to undo the damage. I admit, it was part of my fault. I was trying to 'look' cooperative. Then I realized, I had been cooperative and that just gave the ex a license to act like a fool. So, I got tough and DENIED everything never giving an inch. And, when the judge made an order that was unreasonable, I told her/him.
On bribes; I wondered why this one judge kept making orders in favor of the ex. Of course, I would always file another motion that stayed those orders until another hearing was set. But, I it really bothered me, why, why would with all the evidence right in front of them would they continue to make such unreasonable orders?
So, I started digging into election campaign contributions. Sure enough, the ex's lawyer had contributed a nice sum of money to the judges campaign. Me, a non-contributor, a non-lawyer, against a fellow lawyer and contributor to the judges campaign. What is concerning is this judge is now not in family court, but still in District court.
If I am not mistaken, you HAVE to hold a law degree before you can run for a judgeship. I agree very much that some judges can't make it as lawyers. I've often said if some of them were doctors there would be multiple malpractice lawsuits. But, people are not even educated enough to sue the darn crummy lawyer! So they keep on screwing up and hurting peoples lives with their own ignorance.
I had a lawyer once in the 6 years I've been in litigation and it took me 5 months to undo the damage. I admit, it was part of my fault. I was trying to 'look' cooperative. Then I realized, I had been cooperative and that just gave the ex a license to act like a fool. So, I got tough and DENIED everything never giving an inch. And, when the judge made an order that was unreasonable, I told her/him.
On bribes; I wondered why this one judge kept making orders in favor of the ex. Of course, I would always file another motion that stayed those orders until another hearing was set. But, I it really bothered me, why, why would with all the evidence right in front of them would they continue to make such unreasonable orders?
So, I started digging into election campaign contributions. Sure enough, the ex's lawyer had contributed a nice sum of money to the judges campaign. Me, a non-contributor, a non-lawyer, against a fellow lawyer and contributor to the judges campaign. What is concerning is this judge is now not in family court, but still in District court.
There are very few ethical lawyers in law.
I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or just picking a fight. But when I said make sure politicians aren't lawyers when you cast your vote, I meant politicians who make the laws, not judges. But there are judges who are not lawyers. JPs come to mind, and maybe, but I'm not sure, family court referee/arbitrators/ whatever they are.
I feel your pain though. Once when I saw her lawyer coming out of the judges chambers right before the hearing, and my lawyer was a novice, I knew I was in trouble. I know the judge and lawyer split the fee I had to pay.
I worked closely with a group of lawyers for several years and have many horror stories I could tell.
I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or just picking a fight. But when I said make sure politicians aren't lawyers when you cast your vote, I meant politicians who make the laws, not judges. But there are judges who are not lawyers. JPs come to mind, and maybe, but I'm not sure, family court referee/arbitrators/ whatever they are.
I feel your pain though. Once when I saw her lawyer coming out of the judges chambers right before the hearing, and my lawyer was a novice, I knew I was in trouble. I know the judge and lawyer split the fee I had to pay.
I worked closely with a group of lawyers for several years and have many horror stories I could tell.
Oh, politicians. I thought I read you said make sure judges weren't lawyers. Nope, not picking a fight with you. I was agreeing on the many points you made.
Justice of the Peace? To my knowledge, and I just might be wrong, all judges have to hold a law license therefore must be lawyers. I know there are Senators like Frist (R-TN) who is a cardiologist and then ran for the Senate. He doesn't have a law degree, but he came in handy when a gunman started shooting.
I bet you do have horror stories probably much like the one I have lived trying to convince ignorant judges NOT to change custody of my children to an abuser. I could tell you some horror stories about working on a trauma unit. You know what the main story line is? People with poor skills and bad judgment.
Dragging this post out from the archives, for any suggestions if even applicable.
I've been called in twice for jury duty since I moved here. The last time I received a jury summons, I faxed in my doctor's statement excusing me from jury duty. I received an excusal letter in the mail back from the court excusing me. That was in '04.
Then I got called in again this month and sent a fax from the same doctor with the same medical excuse. I did not get an excusal notice from the court house and I wrote twice to the e-mail address provided on the summons asking if they had received my fax, with no reply back from them.
I showed up for jury duty today and when my badge was swiped I was told I was excused for a medical condition. The lady who swiped my badge said, "Ooops, we sent out an excusal to you on the 15th".
How does one get removed from the circular pool of potential jurors? I have a medical excuse for a condition that only will get worse over time.
I really don't want to go through with this every 3-4 years. Anyone know of a legal and honest way to let the people down on Lewis street that I don't want another one of their summons sent to me?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
