Ailly84 t1_islwugm wrote
Reply to comment by ithriosa in Parkland prosecutors ask for an investigation after a juror says she was threatened by ‘a fellow juror’ during deliberations - CNN by SilentR0b
I agree with all of that when you can make a fact based decision, so the guilt/innocence side of the discussion. When you start talking about something that is purely based in emotions (life without parole vs death), excluding those who are against death is putting a pretty heavy weight towards the jury deciding one way. I know you’d used the example of excluding both those who are 100% for and 100% against, but one of those groups makes up a pretty significant part of the population whereas I’m not really sure the other one actually exists.
ithriosa t1_islz46q wrote
>I agree with all of that when you can make a fact based decision, so the guilt/innocence side of the discussion. When you start talking about something that is purely based in emotions (life without parole vs death), excluding those who are against death is putting a pretty heavy weight towards the jury deciding one way.
It is supposed to be weighted toward the bounds of the law. If the law allows the pursuit of a death penalty, then the jury needs to be able to consider that.
The court is not a venue of public opinion. It is meant to uphold the law.
>but one of those groups makes up a pretty significant part of the population whereas I’m not really sure the other one actually exists.
For instance consider this. You live in a medium to small town and you get raped. They assemble a jury. Do you think it makes sense for them to allow the best friend of your alleged rapist to be on the jury? And on the other side it would not be appropriate for your best friend to be on the jury. Why? Because these people have already made their mind on the case.
So if 90% of your town are against you and will vote against your claim no matter what, that does not mean that the jury should also be biased in the same way.
Juries are not supposed to be random. They are supposed to be neutral. Not everyone is neutral. And in some cases most people are not neutral.
The court is meant to uphold the law. And the law affords both sides with rights. Neither side can have a fair trial if the jury is prejudiced toward one side from the outset.
This is why it can take the court a long time to assemble a jury in high profile cases. Because it is possible that 95% of the population is already prejudiced. However, the court needs to find the 5% which is neutral of the law and the case such that both sides can have a fair trial.
The purpose of a trial is NOT to uphold the rights of the jury. And it is NOT supposed to be fair for the jury. It is supposed to be fair and neutral for the defense and prosecution. The law has guaranteed that they have a fair trial within the law. And if only 5% of jurors are willing to allow a fair trial, then the court needs to find that 5%.
Even if 90% of your town would never consider your rape claim, and 7% would never consider your attackers claims of innocence, then it is the duty of the court to find the 3% who is willing to be neutral
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments