[deleted]
> as concerned as he was by the possibility of a false > conviction without also being concerned by the > possibility of a false acquittal. Isn't that a natural consequence of innocent until proven guilty?
[deleted]
Jury Duty
41–50 of 229 posts
Re: Jury Duty
#42Despite the other negative comments, I actually find this a vicarious account of the judicial system - a poignant reminder that behind any democratic system lies humans.
Friendly note: I think you want some word other than “vicarious”, which doesn’t make sense in context, the way the sentence is constructed. (I’m not precisely sure what you were trying to say, so I won’t suggest alternate words.)
Re: Jury Duty
#43"Edith looks up from a game of solitaire and casually mentions that she actually thinks the murder was committed by the accomplice, who was never found and is not on trial. But since the defendant’s lawyer did such a poor job exonerating him, she concludes, she’s going to deliver a guilty verdict. My jaw drops. No one questions her obviously flawed reasoning, because she’s on their side." This, for me, was the most t…
I don't really trust jury/layman to make the correct decision.
I mean, you're taking ordinary people, untrained to probe the gobbyspeak of lawyers or matters of science
And you're expecting them to render guilty or innocent verdicts?
Re: Jury Duty
#44Wait so this article is basically him saying that the system worked? That's the impression that I got. Even disregarding his early learnings towards high-school level leftist protest and mistrust of the government, doesn't his careful consideration of the case show the reasons why we use a jury system? Even if the 'mob' e.g. the other jurors decide that a person is guilty, one or two reasonable arguments can decide o…
If you admit you were ever on a hung jury, you are much more likely to be struck from the list, so while the author will have to serve jury duty, there’s a good chance the author won’t be on another jury any time soon, especially in another serious case.
Re: Jury Duty
#45"Edith looks up from a game of solitaire and casually mentions that she actually thinks the murder was committed by the accomplice, who was never found and is not on trial. But since the defendant’s lawyer did such a poor job exonerating him, she concludes, she’s going to deliver a guilty verdict. My jaw drops. No one questions her obviously flawed reasoning, because she’s on their side." This, for me, was the most t…
[deleted]
Re: Jury Duty
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Delusions of grandeur? He puts himself on quite a pedestal, comparing himself to Fonda like he's the righteous movie star, but I'm no psychologist. It might be hard, but try to understand the minority perspective in viewing the system, you might trust any part of it, and you'll see things like bias and privilege even when they don't exist.
> He puts himself on quite a pedestal, comparing himself to Fonda like he's the righteous movie star From TFA: > I’m no Henry Fonda. Jesus, did you even read the thing?
Your quote would seem to support the idea you object to. "I'm no Henry Fonda" explicitly draws a comparison between yourself and Henry Fonda, and this kind of rhetorical device is often used to suggest things that the bounds of propriety forbid you from saying outright.
Imagine two political rivals campaigning against each other, Mr. Lowbrow and Mr. Classy. Mr. Lowbrow releases campaign literature to the effect that Mr. Classy is a pussy. Mr. Classy responds "a less courteous person might observe that my esteemed opponent washed out of seventh grade... but I won't. This race is about the issues."
The particular rhetoric Mr. Classy is using there doesn't mean it makes sense to defend him against charges that he called Mr. Lowbrow stupid. (Hey, he specifically said he wasn't doing that!)
Re: Jury Duty
#47This guy seems like a terrible, terrible juror. Bragging about violating the rules, annoyed because the judge is called "your honor", implying that a jury with 6/12 people white is somehow a sign of massive racial bias? What is supposed to be redeeming about this article? I'm not reading it all unless there's something somebody says is worth reading. EDIT: It gets more readable in the jury section, but I still don't…
I just gave up toward the end. Found nothing enjoyable in this read, not really sure why.
Re: Jury Duty
#48A couple of things stand out for me here -
> Perhaps this was the time to mention that having witnessed the murders of Eric Garner and Walter Scott on video made personal experience unnecessary.
Eric Garner said "I can't breathe" 11 times.
Any person that has experienced a chokehold, knows that if you can't breath, you can't move air in and out of your lungs and throat, you can't say anything, not even "I can't breathe" 1 time. Certainly not 11 times - unless it was a purely stationary-type hold.
Also, chokeholds which result in death leave physical damage, that was not present in the autopsy (no damage to the windpipe or neckbones).
Eric Garner was not "murdered", he died in the ambulance from the situation exacerbating his health complications.
Anyone who thinks he was literally "murdered" is racially motivated to see it as such, not based on facts nor common-sense, the later which the author brings up multiple times.
Second, as this is written anonymously and rolls a "white-jury" racial narrative from the start to the end, you have to consider that 9 out of the last 10 racial incidences (of the national news proportion) ended up being hoaxes done to validate someones need for there to be racism where there was none. At some point you get tired of the lies. And there is absolutely nothing in this story that allows the reader to verify it.
Re: Jury Duty
#49Wait so this article is basically him saying that the system worked? That's the impression that I got. Even disregarding his early learnings towards high-school level leftist protest and mistrust of the government, doesn't his careful consideration of the case show the reasons why we use a jury system? Even if the 'mob' e.g. the other jurors decide that a person is guilty, one or two reasonable arguments can decide o…
I believe his point is that although it worked in this instance it seems likely that it DOESN'T work in many other cases.
Then again 10 people would argue the system doesn't work because 2 stubborn knuckleheads refused to issue a guilty verdict when that obviously should have been the ruling.
Re: Jury Duty
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He puts himself on quite a pedestal, comparing himself to Fonda like he's the righteous movie star From TFA: > I’m no Henry Fonda. Jesus, did you even read the thing?
Your quote would seem to support the idea you object to. "I'm no Henry Fonda" explicitly draws a comparison between yourself and Henry Fonda, and this kind of rhetorical device is often used to suggest things that the bounds of propriety forbid you from saying outright. Imagine two political rivals campaigning against each other, Mr. Lowbrow and Mr. Classy. Mr. Lowbrow releases campaign literature to the effect that…
In this case, the author is clearly comparing another juror ("Henry") to Henry Fonda, not himself. Which is definitely not comparing himself to Henry Fonda.