Comments on: Lame Jury

By: Ford Ranger Forum

Ford Ranger Forum — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:55:01 +0000

i agree with you on this completely.visited your blog first time today.but will surely come again.

By: Ford Ranger Forum

Ford Ranger Forum — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:55:01 +0000

i agree with you on this completely.visited your blog first time today.but will surely come again.

By: Toddler Car Seats

Toddler Car Seats — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:36:31 +0000

Very nice blog you have here. Bookmarked! :)

By: Mark Stanziano

Mark Stanziano — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:17:03 +0000

I don't know, Chris. I am a big fan of jury trials. The ordinary citizen acts as the last check and balance on the government's overzealous enofrcement of the law; or, just the government's enforcement of bad laws. With the exception of the part about the foreperson being a bad facilitator, it sounds like things went about how they should have. If all the accused did was to get in the car and drive it a block in order to park it, what is the problem? It may have been a different outcome if the accused had driven the woman all the way home. Who knows?

But, as for the idea that judges should decide people's fate, that is not a good solution. They are not necessarily any smarter than the average person. They are not any better at determining credibility than the average person. They are more likely to favor the prosecution and its witnesses. And, as for the average person who lived when thecountry was founded, I am not sure why that person would have had a better concept of the legal proces, but I am sure that the process has changed considerably since the 1600's.

All in all, I think it is the best system in the world if you have the right lawyer. And, apparently, this particular accused did. The prosecutor should have foreseen this story being told and fashioneda better story that accounted for the defense's version of the facts.

By: banane

banane — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 02:48:41 +0000

Hey George (if that is indeed you)
I agree- it was a good call overall. The process, though, was very f-ed up, and yet, as I say near the end, the lack of energy and attention was mostly because the cops were overzealous (&DA) and so what you get is what you get. Know what I mean?

By: gwax

gwax — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:03:33 +0000

As frustrating and backwards as it may seem, what your describing is, to my understanding, part of the way that a jury is supposed to work.

Many people don't realize that a jury is entitled to interpret the law. That the jury does not understand legal processes and involves their own personal views allows for a more flexible legal system, overall. Sometimes it can make the system a little too flexible but, usually, a judge can reign in a jury sufficiently to prevent things from deviating excessively from the law.

Perhaps the result wasn't what it should have been or, perhaps, it is for the common good to encourage people to take cars away from drunk drivers and park them, even if they, themselves are inebriated.

By: banane

banane — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 19:18:03 +0000

I was trying to pull in the “living in SF” (the background of the photo) the sheer amount of drinking we did- 12 or so champagne bottles- and how as city residents we are wise, oh so wise, to taking cabs and busses instead of getting behind steering wheels, like those bridge & tunnelers.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 06:24:30 +0000

That sounds like a crazy story. What a horrible foreperson! But what's the photo of last year's NYE party? ;) Is it because we drank 12 bottles of champagne and those empty bottles are like the jury? haha.

By: chriss

chriss — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 18:42:59 +0000

The forewoman was hilariously bad. She kept going to her own personal stories, had a very strong opinion, put people on the spot, was factually wrong about process, and all of this because “my husband is a lawyer.”

By: Chris Charabaruk

Chris Charabaruk — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:22:31 +0000

Yikes.

I've never been a fan of jury trials, simply because of this kind of behaviour. You'll always find that twelve random people don't have the experience and knowledge of law that you'd get in one legal professional (or gifted amateur). Perhaps back when the US was founded, it was more likely that people would have a better understanding of the legal process, at the very least, but that still strikes me as too optimistic.

I'm not saying that judge trials are the only way to go; sometimes things are better left to a committee (and that's just what a jury is) but 99 times out of 100, you'll wind up with idiots deciding on a person's future, and that's no good.