why is our jury system fubar?

[Skorixor]

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/Entertainment/Michael_Jackson

now a third MJ juror is coming out saying that they think he's guilty even though they voted he was innocent...

ummmm hellooooooooooo??!?!?!? what was your fucking job??????

people make me sick

[E-bo Obi]

Here's what I get from it. Ok Someone else said they didn't agree with the verdict and got news time. Lets see if I can get on TV now too. I think the problem with the Jury system is that the idiots they put in there don't take the job seriously and really don't want to spend anymore time in there than they have to. So screw justice I gotta get back to work, my family, whatever the hell they think is more important than the safety of our society.

[X'an Shin]

The problem isn't what the jurors think of MJ, it's what can be proven beyond "reasonable doubt."

I KNOW MJ's a perv and a monster. I don't have evidence to back it up, other than his face.

So I can go on camera saying I think he's guilty. But in a courtroom, without enough evidence, I have to say he's not guilty. Which sucks out loud.

[Krusshyk]

Well, there is that...

Then there is the fact that two of them are working on book deals.

[Jabe Adaks]

The problem is that the jurors are from Los Angeles.

Jabe

[Jerrel]

The problem is that the jurors are from Los Angeles.

Jabe

Hey not all people in the LA jurry pool are idiots....there's me.

Any way I've given this long thought ever since I started watching Law and Order. L&A has goten me interested in our judicial system and I see a couple of lets say over sights. I think flaws here is too strong of a word. Number one thing I have a problem with is that the lawers, both prosecution and defence, are allowed to lie to the jurry. A deffence lawer can say anything he or she wants to, even when he knows its not ture, so he or she can get another win under his or her belt. The prosecution can try the same but if they are caught they can be disbared and/or penalized. Solution? Make the penilties harder and make defense lawers suseptible to them, if they are not already. I would find it hard to believe that defense lawers are susetible to them considering the lawers of a child molerstor down in San Diego where making a deal for their client in which their client would tell the cops where the childs body was in exchange for a leanient sentace. The cops however found the little girls body before they agreed to the deal and durring trail the lawers told the jurry that he couldn't have dumped the body and that the body was dumped while the guy was in jail. Anything for a win.

One other thing that I could see that may help a jurry sort through every ones lies if if a chosen represenative with in the jurry or a court appointed lawer would be allowed to cross examine all the witnesses and durring closing statements ask the lawers directly questions pretaining to the cases.

[Skorixor]

Hey not all people in the LA jurry pool are idiots....there's me.

'nuff said

[E-bo Obi]

Sorry jerrel, lmao at skor.

[Krusshyk]

The problem is that the jurors are from Los Angeles.

Jabe

Hey not all people in the LA jurry pool are idiots....there's me.

Any way I've given this long thought ever since I started watching Law and Order. L&A has goten me interested in our judicial system and I see a couple of lets say over sights. I think flaws here is too strong of a word. Number one thing I have a problem with is that the lawers, both prosecution and defence, are allowed to lie to the jurry. A deffence lawer can say anything he or she wants to, even when he knows its not ture, so he or she can get another win under his or her belt. The prosecution can try the same but if they are caught they can be disbared and/or penalized. Solution? Make the penilties harder and make defense lawers suseptible to them, if they are not already. I would find it hard to believe that defense lawers are susetible to them considering the lawers of a child molerstor down in San Diego where making a deal for their client in which their client would tell the cops where the childs body was in exchange for a leanient sentace. The cops however found the little girls body before they agreed to the deal and durring trail the lawers told the jurry that he couldn't have dumped the body and that the body was dumped while the guy was in jail. Anything for a win.

One other thing that I could see that may help a jurry sort through every ones lies if if a chosen represenative with in the jurry or a court appointed lawer would be allowed to cross examine all the witnesses and durring closing statements ask the lawers directly questions pretaining to the cases.

I understand your feeling...the system isn't perfect. However, to my knowledge, a defense is not allowed to "lie" either. He cannot present an "impossible defense". Meaning he cannot present a defense that couldn't possibly be proven. Not that he HAS to prove it, but it must be a defense that could be proven should it be attempted. That's why "God made me do it" doesn't fly in court. You can't physically prove God spoke to you, so your defense is technically impossible. He is allowed to present only plausible or possible alternative theories of a crime. The theories he presents may sound like they came out of left field, but they have to be possible. The problem is that ANYTHING is possible.

Lying in court is still illegal, no matter which side of the table you are on. Allowing his client to tell a lie that the lawyer knows to be false is suborning purgory, which is illegal and there are consequences for it, should it be proven. Same rules on both sides, it's just easier for the defense because he doesn't have to prove anything. All he has to do is sew the seeds of doubt.

But if your client is guilty and tells you, what do you do as the defense attorney? Drop the case? Lose on purpose? Even if you tell him to take a plea, why would he go for it? He has a shot at total freedom. The best thing for a lawyer to do is present the best defense he can. That way, when the guy is convicted (as hopefully the evidence speaks for itself), there is no room on appeal.

It sucks, but semantics play a huge role in the judicial system. You have to define "Lying" before you can sit here and say defense lawyers can lie to the jury.

[Jerrel]

The hole "god made me do it" can be used as a not guilty by reason of insanity.

As for lying. I can walk away from the case if my client says hey by the way I did it. It's called ethics. Every lawer has the right to walk away from defending some one who they know is guilty. And if the guy is to stupid not to realize that every lawer he gets and confesses to drops him then I'll be the last one to cry foul. I believe that every one needs a defense even if they are guilty what I dont believe in is the lies that spew forth from both defense and the prosecution. If the jury is given a chance to find out the facts for themselves via cross examinations and direct questions to the lawers themselves I can see alot of guys who get off not geting off and those who are falsly accused being able to go home instead of sitting in jail.

[E-bo Obi]

I can walk away from the case if my client says hey by the way I did it. It's called ethics. Every lawer has the right to walk away from defending some one who they know is guilty.

And if every lawyer walked away from defending someone they believed was guilty the legal system we have now would be in worse shape than it is now. Everyone has a right to council. I will defend that to the death. I don't like lawyers in general but they are a necessary evil.

[Krusshyk]

The hole "god made me do it" can be used as a not guilty by reason of insanity.

As for lying. I can walk away from the case if my client says hey by the way I did it. It's called ethics. Every lawer has the right to walk away from defending some one who they know is guilty. And if the guy is to stupid not to realize that every lawer he gets and confesses to drops him then I'll be the last one to cry foul. I believe that every one needs a defense even if they are guilty what I dont believe in is the lies that spew forth from both defense and the prosecution. If the jury is given a chance to find out the facts for themselves via cross examinations and direct questions to the lawers themselves I can see alot of guys who get off not geting off and those who are falsly accused being able to go home instead of sitting in jail.

It doesn't make sense for lawyers to drop their cases if they know their client is guilty. Not to say that innocent people don't get tried for crimes they didn't commit (surely they do) but guess what? People who actually DO commit crimes get tried as well. So who defends them if every lawyer is ethically bound to say, "Sorry pal...you did it and I just can't defend you"?

On the "God made me do it" kick...you are misunderstanding me. Saying killing people is God's will is not a defense. Claiming that an ethereal being (ie God) TOLD you (a hallucination, typical of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders which indicate a separation from reality) is evidence of mental insanity. Mental insanity is nothing more (as basically established by the M'naghten rule) that the person was incapable of understanding what they did was wrong.

Secondly, I think you are assuming that more people try to claim insanity than actually do. Several states have abolished the insanity defense rule outright. Some states have even added "diminished capacity" and "guilty but mentally ill" judgments as possible guilty verdicts. The supreme court upheld those decisions in 1994. Secondly, studies in the 90's show that less than 1 percent of criminal cases even CLAIM insanity, and of that 1 percent, 1/4 of them get acquitted. And of that 1/4 of a percent, the overwhelming majority of those people are schizophrenic. Thirdly, if you think an insanity defense gets you off the hook, you are mistaken. Odds are good, that the "insane" (a legal term) person gets institutionalized by the state. I recommend visiting a state run psych ward; it's not a pleasant place.

So, you can try claiming you are a nut job. Statistics tell me you will lose.

[X'an Shin]

All I'm going to say here is that basing your opinion on today's judicial system on an the show Law and Order is like applying at NASA as a Space Shuttle Pilot and claiming that you beat this game under the section for "comparable experience."

[Jerrel]

All I'm going to say here is that basing your opinion on today's judicial system on an the show Law and Order is like applying at NASA as a Space Shuttle Pilot and claiming that you beat this game under the section for "comparable experience."

I did intend for you to get the impression that I have based my view on L&O. I gave it credit to my interest in the subject. I've been on a couple of jurries on of witch one was a criminal case and I noticed the issues alread stated by me. The show simply inspired me to think of solutions to the issues I saw in my experience.

As for the lawer walkin away.

I said if the accused told the lawer that he did it not if the lawer felt his client did it should the lawer walk away. I see it ethicly wrong to continue to defend a client from charges that you know for a fact, from your clients own confession, that he or she is guilty of. If a lawer feels the person is guilty fine thats what the lawer feels but he or she is duty bound to defend the person. As long as the accused does not confess to their lawers that they did it the accused has no worry about his or her lawer bailing on them.

[Skorixor]

I said if the accused told the lawer that he did it not if the lawer felt his client did it should the lawer walk away. I see it ethicly wrong to continue to defend a client from charges that you know for a fact, from your clients own confession, that he or she is guilty of. If a lawer feels the person is guilty fine thats what the lawer feels but he or she is duty bound to defend the person. As long as the accused does not confess to their lawers that they did it the accused has no worry about his or her lawer bailing on them.

this paragraph makes no sense whatsoever...I can't figure what you're trying to prove...

first you say the lawyer should walk away

then you say he is duty bound to defend him

then you say that the accused shouldnt tell his lawyer so he won't bail