Why We Have Juries

_{Barry Arrington
July 14, 2013

Off Topic

1}_{Categories
Off Topic}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

We have a jury system not because jurors are are necessarily wiser, more educated, or innately smarter than the alternatives (judges, kings, standing tribunals, viziers, etc.). By and large they almost certainly are not. We have juries because they are safer for those of us without power (the 99%, to use a phrase that has become all too hackneyed in such a short time) than the alternatives.

The Zimmerman case is a classic example. The prosecution was not based on the evidence against Zimmerman. It was based on the politics of race. The State Attorney should never have brought the case. She had no hope of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed murder, but she was afraid to do the right thing. The jury protected Zimmerman from her abuse of power. It just that simple.

To protect people like Zimmerman (and you and me) from the power of the state we have to put up with a few OJ-type juries.

Comments

Of course to a Brit, the idea of an armed neighbourhood watch guy is absolutely bizarre. Not even our police are routinely armed.Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PST}

Yes. If Zimmerman had been armed with a can of pepper spray instead of a gun, this could have had a much happier ending.keiths_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PST}

I agree with Joe too - especially this comment:
But anyway- if you want to have neighborhood watches they need to be multiple people with non-lethal means for deterents. Oh, and they should be able to handle themselves against teens
Mark Frank_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PST}

Golly, I agree with Joe too!Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 15, 2013
July
07
Jul
15
15
2013
12:04 AM
12
12
04
AM
PST}

I guess the jury system is like democracy - not very good but it is hard to think of something better. I am not at all happy with the combination of Jury trial with competitive lawyers pleading cases. There is just too much scope for manipulation. The fact is juries are full of people of varying abilities and backgrounds being manipulated by professionals and they often make the wrong decision and sometimes that wrong decision goes the other way convicting an innocent man. We should not be complacent.Mark Frank_{July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PST}

I never heard of this case or understand why its on a origin forum?! The reason we have juries is from old ideas that it would be more likely a just verdict from ones peers because they would be more likely fair and perfectly intelligent enough to weigh the case. Judges never know better because a case is based on raw facts. Not higher insights if people think Judges are more wise. For sure America has allowed true Americans and others to be accused generally of historic and so present racism. So with this premise it can be invoked as needed or wanted by the immigrant peoples. The way to beat this is to take on this premise. Americans have nener had any raist etc beliefs that interfered with justice. If small numbers of people did then its the same as with the immigrants. In fact more likely its more with the foreigners. Americans and America (and Canada) will never be free of the oppression of racial secret motivationism until she defends herslf on this accusation and attacks the accusers. Just like in origin issues creationists are attacked as anti-science or very incompetent in understanding science and so explaining our dissent. Accusation is not indictment. Just take them on. North America today is in a state of invasion and occupation by segregated identity peoples in every way possible. Ethnicity or sex. It must be dealt with just like the old invasions where violoence was used. This time its moral and intellectual invasions. Anyways this is a origins forum.Robert Byers_{July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
10:27 PM
10
10
27
PM
PST}

keiths: If you are truly capable of reading my mind,
I can’t read your mind. I read what you posted, and it was disgusting race mongering from beginning to end.
keiths: then why do you fare so poorly when debating me?
Now that’s funny. I’ll give you points for humor. Wait, you’re not serious are you?Barry Arrington_{July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PST}

OK wait, there's too much we/ I don't know. Z sed he got out of the car to look for a reference point so he could relay his location to the dispatcher. How did it go from that to a physical confrontation? If Z confronted Martin he should have identified himself and asked Martin what he was doing. True that could have happened and TM just snapped, saw he was up against a wimp, albeit an armed wimp, and had at it. But really? This is almost like the old west- small guy with a gun gets his butt kicked and shoots the butt-kicker. And the people say the butt-kicker deserved it for kicking the wrong butt. But anyway- if you want to have neighborhood watches they need to be multiple people with non-lethal means for deterents. Oh, and they should be able to handle themselves against teens. Neighborhood watches are supposed to make the streets safer. They are not supposed to be street gangs in their own right killing any intruder they deem is a threat to their turf.Joe_{July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PST}

Barry Arrington:
Your point was about race.
Barry, If you are truly capable of reading my mind, then why do you fare so poorly when debating me? My point was in direct response to your OP, which, if you haven't already forgotten, was entitled "Why We Have Juries." Juries offer some protections against the unbridled power of the state, but they can also be quite stupid, as you acknowledged in the OP.keiths_{July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PST}

Keiths, the Slate story is certainly false. Firing a shot into the air is not criminal assault under the law, and the woman would not have been charged with criminal assault if that is all she did. Furthermore, if the point of the Slate article were to demonstrate that juries can be stupid, then the point could have been made by simply telling the story of the woman’s conviction (even though that story is – as I have explained – certainly false). There was no need to compare it to the Zimmerman verdict to make that point. No, keiths. You and the Slate author were making a different point (and you are trying to run from it now that you’ve been caught out). Your point was about race. Your point was “innocent black woman gets convicted because she was black (never mind that she was certainly guilty of something – no jury is that stupid); guilty white man (never mind that he was not guilty) gets acquitted because he was white (and never mind that he was Hispanic). In short, you and the Slate author are shameless race mongers and you disgust me.Barry Arrington_{July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PST}

When the news media hypes up certain events such as the Zimmerman case etc..., it usually mean's there is something more important going on in some other part of the world the government would rather keep you ignorant about, such as war.computerist_{July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PST}

Barry, The point is that juries, while they offer some protections to the accused, can also be incredibly stupid, as the Slate article demonstrates.keiths_{July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PST}

The sad thing is that there is nothing we can do in this situation. 1. We have a racism industry in this society consisting of some powerful men who greatly benefit from any perceived racism and can only carry on further profitable action if there is a perception of racism. 2. The key figures in this racism industry, despite being discredited by the non-factual statements they bring forward, still have reporters who cover them and people who listen to them and accept their word as the truth, facts be damned. 3. Fortunately, I think that the most vocal proponents of the racism industry are older, and they are not being replaced by new leaders ( unless you count rappers ). 4. When the older members of this racism industry die out, there is a chance that race relations will be better. Until then every potentially racial situation, independent of what the actual facts are, is going to be exploited because the perception of racism is just so profitable for the racism industry.JDH_{July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PST}

keiths, I am not sure what point you are trying to make, but I assume it is something along the lines of: This black woman was convicted in a wholly unrelated case about which we know practically nothing other than what the reporter chose to tell us (and what the reporter chose to tell us is absurd on its face and almost certainly false or at best misleading). Therefore, Zimmerman – whom no reasonable person could believe was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt – should have been convicted too. If your point is what I assume it to be, then your point is beyond idiotic. Get a grip man.Barry Arrington_{July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PST}

From a Slate article on the verdict:
On Saturday night, a Florida jury of six women found George Zimmerman not guilty of any crime in the shooting death of a black teenager named Trayvon Martin. Not murder. Not even manslaughter. A lot of people are having a hard time accepting this verdict, given that Zimmerman was armed with a pistol and Martin was not, and a police dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Martin, and he did it anyway. It doesn't help that the same prosecutor who lost the Zimmerman case recently won a conviction against Marissa Alexander, a black woman who fired a warning shot to chase off her abusive ex-husband, hurting no one. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Twenty years for a warning shot against a known abuser versus no time at all for killing an unarmed teenager leaves you scratching your head and wondering if justice is not just blind but also insane. I spent four years covering criminal courts in Florida. I covered every kind of case, from misdemeanors to murder. One thing I learned is that you can never predict what a jury might do once it’s locked away to deliberate. I covered one trial where the defendant was accused of bigamy, and his defense was: Sorry, I forgot I was married already. He walked.
keiths_{July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PST}

I agree with Denyse and Kairofocus. (I hope that doesn't worry either of you :))Elizabeth B Liddle_{July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PST}

Good point, kairosfocus. That was the most persuasive argument when Canada abolished capital punishment: If you remove the drama around the death penalty, jurors are more likely to just vote to acquit or convict on the evidence. They are not being asked to decide if the person should live or die, just whether there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt. If there is, the judge can sort out how much time the accused should do. So people don't feel either way that they have something on their consciences. The Zimmerman case feels odd to me because here is a question no one asks: If Martin were white, would Zimmerman have behaved any differently? Martin, though a minor (17), was apparently bigger than Zimmerman. (The photos widely disseminated in the media apparently show Martin at a much younger age than when the fatal encounter actually took place.) And Zimmerman did not know that Martin did not have a gun. Zimmerman had also sustained injuries in the encounter, so he must have felt his life could be at stake. Not only is it unclear to me that Zimmerman would have behaved differently if the other guy was white, it is not clear to me that I would have behaved any differently from Zimmerman in either case. If the women on the jury were thinking like me, it is no wonder they felt they could not convict, no matter what the prosecution or anybody said about race. - O'LearyNews_{July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PST}

Some thoughts on the Zimmerman case. 95% of all black men killed by guns are killed by other black men. None of those cases got this kind of coverage. Had Zimmerman been black, none of us would have probably even heard about it. This was a racial powder keg trumped up by the Obama administration (the DOJ provided support for those demonstrating against Zimmerman) and the media (especially MSNBC and NBC, caught selectively editing 911 tapes and photographs to make Zimmerman appear guilty) to foment racial unease. On twitter, there were many death threats against Zimmerman, and widespread threats of violence and rioting if Zimmerman walked. Interestingly, I heard of no death threats or threats of rioting if Zimmerman was found guilty, which would have been the true travesty of justice. It appears that few people cared whether or not Zimmerman was actually guilty or innocent under the law, but rather were only interested in fomenting some sense of racial oppression to justify potential civil unrest. Those six jurors should be commended for their bravery and sense of duty to justice.William J Murray_{July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PST}

And hey, today is: Bastille Day.kairosfocus_{July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PST}

BA: A sobering thought -- that the jury's veto is a needed check on the potential to abuse state power. Reminds me of how jury nullification by refusal to convict under many crimes with death penalties disproportionate to what was done led to legal reform of many draconian penalties. Well worth pondering. Let us hope the mischief that has been stirred does not end in the absurdity of destructive and murderous rioting. KFkairosfocus_{July 14, 2013
July
07
Jul
14
14
2013
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PST}

Prev 1 2