It's over. I put a man in prison for the rest of his natural life.

[mudwhistle]

paperview, you are not a Real American.

shame on you.

I surprised they somehow haven't blamed Obama yet for this, or asked if he was a Muslim.

But they have thrown around that dirty word, "Liberal" quite a bit, eh?

Paperview has also thrown around that dirty word, conservative.
It may have been in frustration, but it was still used.

Conservative seems to be a dirty word only in some circles.

But those that are called conservative wear it like a badge of honor because being conservative is nothing to be ashamed of.

However 'Liberal' seems to be dirty to liberals themselves because they keep wanting to deny they are liberals or they keep changing their name.....to Progressives for example. Some of them don't even know what Progressive means.....some have said it means they believe in progress. But God Dammit don't call them a liberal.

 

[paperview]

I'm proud to call myself a liberal.

Nothing dirty about it at all to me.

 

[Harry Dresden]

It's a procedural necessity though. In my jurisdiction there is a concept called "similar fact evidence" that might be introduced (extremely difficult though) in certain circumstances where previous behaviours and actions can be admitted into evidence. But the problem with routinely bring in priors is that a jury can be biased - even inadvertently - and see the evidence less than objectively. That would be unfair and fairness is an important part of a trial.

dI....i understand what you are saying......but if the person on trail has been arrested before NUMEROUS times (not once before,but 3,4,5,6 times before) and here he is again, on trial for the same thing.....and they already know the evidence is pretty heavy,not thin,but heavy against him......well in these cases i think the jury has the right to know...

 

[Terry]

Well I for one hate Paperview's politics but I don't hate the person. I can separate the two, unless you get all ugly with me then I'll try my best to stay at a level above you, but that would be hard. LOL

 

[random3434]

Well I for one hate Paperview's politics but I don't hate the person. I can separate the two, unless you get all ugly with me then I'll try my best to stay at a level above you, but that would be hard. LOL

See, that's the point I'm trying to make here. I think those "jumping" on her are doing since she's a liberal. I wonder if everyone would have ganged up on me if I posted the exact same OP, and I'm considered a "lib."

I don't think I've ever seen you get ugly Terry! You're an !

 

[Terry]

Well I for one hate Paperview's politics but I don't hate the person. I can separate the two, unless you get all ugly with me then I'll try my best to stay at a level above you, but that would be hard. LOL

See, that's the point I'm trying to make here. I think those "jumping" on her are doing since she's a liberal. I wonder if everyone would have ganged up on me if I posted the exact same OP, and I'm considered a "lib."

I don't think I've ever seen you get ugly Terry! You're an !

Oh No Echo, I can get down and dirty too. I think those that jumped didn't' think first.

I knew Paperview had a thread about it before the trial started and this was a follow up. He should pat himself on the back because that is a tough thing for anyone to go through and like Paper stated a lot of people will do anything to get out of Jury duty.

Paperview wasn't making it a political statement but rather using the thread as a big exhale.

I don't look down on those that jumped either because I understand sometimes when you read a post, it comes across differently then what the OP had intended or I just read it wrong. I do that often. LOL

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm proud to call myself a liberal.

Nothing dirty about it at all to me.

Congrats

You seem to be the exception....not the rule.

 

[del]

Well I for one hate Paperview's politics but I don't hate the person. I can separate the two, unless you get all ugly with me then I'll try my best to stay at a level above you, but that would be hard. LOL

See, that's the point I'm trying to make here. I think those "jumping" on her are doing since she's a liberal. I wonder if everyone would have ganged up on me if I posted the exact same OP, and I'm considered a "lib."

I don't think I've ever seen you get ugly Terry! You're an !

i think you've nailed it.

all in all, a pretty pathetic display, especially jennyeliza and california girl. i know that if i had posted the same thread with the same title and posts under my name, the reactions would either have been different or non-existent.

my respect for those involved has changed accordingly.

i served on a federal jury for three weeks. it wasn't a murder case, but it was very disruptive of my personal life/income, and whenever i have referred to it in conversation, i've said *I* convicted the scumbags concerned.

of course, i was speaking to adults, so i didn't get all kinds of puerile bullshit rained down on my head for my pronoun choice.

good on you paperview, and fuck the rest of them if they can't take a joke.

seriously.

 

[brewerboy]

Good thread.

And way to be Paperview.

I bet that sucked for you and the other jurors

 

[Liability]

I don't get the criticisms of Paperview. The political inclinations of a juror should play no role in how the juror votes on the ultimate issue at a trial of whether (or not) the prosecution has proved a case beyond a reasonable doubt. And it sounds to me like Paperview put politics entirely aside.

So what is there to criticize?

That a juror has expressed satisfaction about doing a civic duty and believing that Justice got served?

Fuck.

I would hope every ONE of us (at least American citizens) would feel just as good about having served in that way and that we would feel just as confidant in our ultimate verdicts.

How many of our fellow citizens try REAL REAL HARD to duck serving on a jury?

Don't they realize that this automatically means that they are conceding to a bunch of strangers the responsibility of determining whether a prosecution has been properly presented? Yet here, that is precisely what Paperview chose NOT to do.

And despite that, folks here are riding Paperview -- apparently based mostly on mere political inclinations which played (it seems, and rightly so) NO part in the verdict.

Those unjustifiable criticisms embarrass me. So, I consider it appropriate to note once again that we don't all agree that ANY criticsm is warranted.

 

[kwc57]

Ok, I haven't jumped on the trash CaliGirl bandwagon.

I'm conservative. One of the things I most respect is our country's judicial system.

Therefore, I respect the people who do their duty and participate in it.

Girl..I'm not dissing you for respecting those who give their lives and well being to protect us...but a big part of that, and the reason they do that, is to support our democratic judicial system. Don't minimize it.

Hey Allie, I'm not minimizing it! If the OP had opened his thread with his part in a jury of "12 angry men", and that THEY had reached the right verdict etc... then I would have high 5'ed it, but he credits himself alone with having sent down the bad guy. I dislike self promotion.... unless it's me.

I respect Pap for having done his duty but, at it is the duty of us all to serve as part of the justice system when asked. I see nothing special in someone doing what we should all do.

You obviously have never actually sat on a jury, have you? If so, the experience obviously went right over your head.

 

[kwc57]

Yea, because jury duty is so incredibly dangerous. Paperview might get a papercut ....

My bad. You idiot.

I guess the extra security provided to jurors when we were there and the fact many of us (we discussed this only after) did not take our usual routes home, and watched our rear view mirrors carefully should one of those angry faces in the courtroom follow us,
was because we were concerned ...about 'papercuts.'

Of course the service can not be compared to the dangers Firemen and Police go through, no one ever said that, and no one said it was 'so incredibly dangerous,' but I think you fail to understand when there is a murder trial such as this, yes, jurors do expose themselves to some forms of risk.

I did my service happily and was grateful for the opportunity to take part in our judicial system.

Don't tell me it's 'nothing to be proud of.' Though it crippled my business, depleted my income, caused me to have to rent a car for several days because my brakes went on me during the trial and brought a great amount of upheaval to my life, it was a tiny price to pay to know I helped to serve our country and put a murderer behind bars for the rest of his life.

I feel happy, and yes proud about that. Nothing in your petty, spiteful rants will ever take that away.

As I've already said, you claim that "I" sent this guy down. Well, if you had said you were on the jury that sent him down, my reaction would be different. I dislike glory seekers.

Lots of people have difficulties because of jury duty. You aren't special, you did your duty. Good for you - but - you were one of 12 who convicted a guilty person. You recognize the contribution of the other members of the jury - who were just as civic minded as you, right?

PPaperview did send the guy up the river. All it takes is one out of twelve to vote no. The vote has to be unanimous. Each of the twelve has the power to vote no and each has the power to vote yes. It takes twelve for the conviction, but each individual has the individual power to make it happen.

 

[kwc57]

Is she attacking others for doing their civic duty? No, she just is pointing out that the Conservatives on this thread are the ONLY ones attacking her.

Some yes, but not most.
That street goes both ways, sis.
I've seen threads where only liberals attacked a conservative, but not all liberals did, when the subject matter was not political.

But I'm talking about this thread. It's just disappointing to say the least that some people stoop to this.

Basement dwelling, forum trolls are not "people"".

 

[mudwhistle]

Good thread.

And way to be Paperview.

I bet that sucked for you and the other jurors

It's one thing to think a guilty person should be punished but another to decide that guilt. However I wouldn't dwell on it all that much if I felt the verdict was just.

This thread is going on a long time....and I keep coming back for some reason.

Maybe because I just like Paperview's avatar. Really nice ass.

 

[Truthmatters]

With no hope of parole.

And this liberal feels damn good about it!

Maybe he'll die in prison soon and save the taxpayers a lot of money.

Murderers don't do that. (see link in my sig line.....35 years and counting since he killed Lori, 2 death sentences to his credit no less).

Congrats bleeding heart anti-death penalty liberal. Another asshole the taxpayer is stuck feeding, clothing, housing and providing better medical care to than most Americans receive---for the rest of his natural life no less.

You should feel GREAT.

Why dont you know that a death conviction costs the state more than a life in prison conviction?

 

[mudwhistle]

Maybe he'll die in prison soon and save the taxpayers a lot of money.

Murderers don't do that. (see link in my sig line.....35 years and counting since he killed Lori, 2 death sentences to his credit no less).

Congrats bleeding heart anti-death penalty liberal. Another asshole the taxpayer is stuck feeding, clothing, housing and providing better medical care to than most Americans receive---for the rest of his natural life no less.

You should feel GREAT.

Why dont you know that a death conviction costs the state more than a life in prison conviction?

Only because the appeals process made it so. Appeals shouldn't go on for years and years.

 

[Truthmatters]

Our court system was designed to protect the innocent from wrongful conviction.


If you dont like it I suggest you move to someplace that doesnt care if people are wrongfully convicted.

 

[mudwhistle]

Our court system was designed to protect the innocent from wrongful conviction.


If you dont like it I suggest you move to someplace that doesnt care if people are wrongfully convicted.

Boy are you a silly SOB.

Our court system is designed for lawyers to make money.

The innocent get convicted all of the time.

The guilty get off scott-free all of the time as well.

But it's still a better system then the systems in place in the countries you mentioned.

And btw.....why don't you go looking for someone who gives a flying-fuck what you think anyway.

 

[AllieBaba]

Our court system was designed to protect the innocent from wrongful conviction.


If you dont like it I suggest you move to someplace that doesnt care if people are wrongfully convicted.

Boy are you a silly SOB.

Our court system is designed for lawyers to make money.

The innocent get convicted all of the time.

The guilty get off scott-free all of the time as well.

But it's still a better system then the systems in place in the countries you mentioned.

And btw.....why don't you go looking for someone who gives a flying-fuck what you think anyway.

Innocents do get convicted. But the system wasn't created for lawyers, lawyers just fucked it up.

And we're a big republic. Things get jumbled.

Still works better than anyone else's.

 

[Liability]

Our court system was designed to protect the innocent from wrongful conviction.


If you dont like it I suggest you move to someplace that doesnt care if people are wrongfully convicted.

Boy are you a silly SOB.

Our court system is designed for lawyers to make money.

The innocent get convicted all of the time.

The guilty get off scott-free all of the time as well.

But it's still a better system then the systems in place in the countries you mentioned.

And btw.....why don't you go looking for someone who gives a flying-fuck what you think anyway.

That is bullshit populist tripe.

The system turns out to be imperfect. Gee. Who woulda thunk it? A system designed BY mankind FOR mankind turns out not to be perfect.

Rock my universe.

Given the presumption of innocence and the high level of evidence needed by prosecutors to establish guilt to the legal standard as viewed BY a jury of 12, it is remarkable that the government obtains as many convictions as it does. But it is relatively rare that the innocent get convicted. Of course it still happens. The fact that it's relatively rare is of little comfort to the wrongly convicted, but it is major comfort to the majority of innocent people who get tried.

And yes, it also happens (more frequently) that the guilty get acquitted. That is not actually a design flaw, however. It is built into our legal system on the belief that it is better for society that some guilty get acquitted than that some innocents get convicted. We generally LIKE that fact if we stop to consider that if WE were innocent and tried, WE would surely prefer NOT to be convicted by mistake.

Lawyers (defense variety) in criminal cases are the ones who stand between a fairly powerful entity, the government, and conviction. We aren't all scumbags for doing that.

I liked "wearing the white hat" when I was a prosecutor. But I have grown comfortable in attempting to hold the toes of the police and the prosecutors to the line when it comes time to defend people accused by the police and the prosecutors. Done properly, defense attorneys don't lie to Courts or juries. And they don't knowingly permit their client's witnesses to lie, either. (Yes, of course it still happens and that's reprehensible, but it is NOT the way the system is designed.) Instead, they compel the prosecutors to PROVE their charges.

The majority of cases may end in convictions, but when we criticize the legal system, does it ever occur to people that MAYBE that's LARGELY because it is the GUILTY who are the ones getting arrested and charged in the first damn place?