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

[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.

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.

You're talking semantics.

Lawyers created the court system and the laws.

It's currently designed for them to make money plain and simple.

 

[JD_2B]

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.

You do realize that the life in prison sentence is much cheaper for taxpayers in the long run than the death penalty sentence is.. I don't know how anyone can NOT at least bat an eye at the millions and millions of dollars those appeals go for, alone.

 

[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.

You do realize that the life in prison sentence is much cheaper for taxpayers in the long run than the death penalty sentence is.. I don't know how anyone can NOT at least bat an eye at the millions and millions of dollars those appeals go for, alone.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Diuretic]

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...

It makes sense doesn't it? The problem is that common law systems aren't much interested in common sense. This has been a particular bugbear of mine for some time. I understand why things are the way they are but they shouldn't be that way.

I'll try to keep this brief.

The common law-influenced trial depends on the logic of inference.

To be able to infer you have to have something to infer from and that's where evidence comes into it.

The evidence, as we are all aware, can be of many forms but one thing it has to be is admissible.

Admissibility broadly depends on fairness in how evidence was obtained.

Plenty of evidence can be found by investigators but not presented because of the admissibility rules.

The propensity of an individual to, say, steal cars, might be represented in his priors but how much weight should the jury be allowed to put on his prior behaviour if he's on trial for a fresh count of stealing a car?

If the jury knew he'd been convicted fourteen times for car stealing I think they'd be inclined to think he'd done it this time too.

But would that then mean the jury would see the evidence differently?

Would there be a greater propensity for the jury to infer guilt from what evidence there was because of the knowledge of the defendant's priors?

I think the argument is that the jury should be allowed to make its judgement, its inferential judgement, without being put in a particular frame of mind relative to the defendant because of known prior behaviours.

The evidence in front of the jury is what's important. His fingerprints were found inside the car (because he forgot to set it alight), similarly his DNA is all over the interior of the car. That evidence speaks for itself, as it should.

As I said, similar fact evidence is able to be produced in courts here but only under very strict circumstances. "Reputing" a defendant is considered unfair and the procedural rules of evidence are built on - among other things - fairness, hence the concept of a fair trial.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

No it doesn't. It's a complete fuckup. Close minded thinking Allie, it's ours so it must be the best. It's fucked.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

You're talking semantics.

Lawyers created the court system and the laws.

It's currently designed for them to make money plain and simple.

Even though it's fucked up I have to disagree with those propositions. It's a lot more complex than that.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

You're talking semantics.

Lawyers created the court system and the laws.

It's currently designed for them to make money plain and simple.

Even though it's fucked up I have to disagree with those propositions. It's a lot more complex than that.

No shit Sherlock.

Lawyers could make whiping your ass complex.

I was studying in the field for a couple of years and stopped when some pin-striped little prick lawyer told me he wouldn't hire any legal secretary or paralegal unless he/she had tits.

 

[JenyEliza]

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.

No they shouldn't.

Certainly NOT almost 34 years, as is happening in Lori's case.

And the creep who killed Lori FULLY ADMITS KIDNAPPING AND KILLING HER.

Lori's killer is currently *the longest serving* Death Row inmate in the US.

For crying out loud, HE LEAD THE POLICE TO HER BODY and knew details about her murder that only the killer would know.

For almost 34 years he has appealed--two trips to the US Supreme Court, a new penalty phase trial and a SECOND unanymous (sp?) death penalty sentence and he is still going.

He continues to appeal HIS SENTENCE (NOT his conviction--he doesn't deny his guilt). He just doesn't believe he should die for killing an innocent 8 year old girl.

Hullo?

 

[PixieStix]

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?

Not to mention the fact that she proclaimed her liberalism straight up in the OP.

I am glad she served and that she got the conviction she hoped for after all the evidence. I was simply struck by her liberal proclaimation. That is suspect in any decision on a jury.

If I had posted the same OP, and proclaimed my conservatism in the process. How would that have been recieved?

 

[Charles Stucker]

I know I convicted a guilty man.

I became even more sure when the judge came into the deliberation room after we had rendered our verdict and said "you were not allowed to hear this during the trial, but this man has previously brutally assaulted people in this fashion, and even spent time in prison for it."

That was very considerate of the judge. He deserves thanks for his behavior.