LoKyBuckeye
I give up. This board is too hard to understand.
I don't trust the Jury.... remember... these were people too stupid to get out of jury duty... :moo:
Upvote
0
-
New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.
- Thread starter Bucklion
- Start date
High Lonesome
Hook 'Em
actually there were several instances where she demonstrated that she knew what she was doing was wrong.
Upvote
0
I prefer "too dumb to live."
I don't think anybody questions whether or not Yates was insane. Sane people don't methodically drown their own children. The qualifier "not guilty" is the problem.
Upvote
0
So juries are always right then? I know, I know, they were in the courtroom, blah blah blah...but who am I, and what do I know... except that I sure am glad OJ is walking free.
I see no one addressed my other question...think the verdict would have been the same for a poor black single inner-city mom?
Upvote
0
tibor75
Banned
Did you ever think that maybe OJ was found not guilty because of the stupidity of the prosectution and Judge Ito?
Judge Ito's jury rules basically prohibited anybody w/ a brain from being on the jury.
The decision for him to try the glove on was stupid. The DNA eveidence was botched by the lab. And one of the key pieces of evidence was found by an admitted racist.
Same thing with the Rodney King beating. Rodney King was such a loser and a criminal that he never even took the stand. What's the jury supposed to think?
Upvote
0
OH10
*
I'd be careful about what you read in an article.
Wow, I've had plenty more clients get convicted than get their case dismissed or found not guilty. Guess I must be a shitty attorney. You work with the facts you're given. Most cases don't go to trial because they're wrought with evidence of guilt that can't be thrown out.
Is it beneficial to retain one attorney as opposed to another? Absolutely. Just depends on the attorney. But I promise you attorneys are not miracle workers. Heck, I saw Sam Shamansky just the other day utilizing the old bang on the table routine because he had nothing to work with. And he's one of the most expensive criminal defense attorneys in Central Ohio.
As far as experts go, they are held to a higher professional standard than other witnesses, and are held to the same oath to testify truthfully. It is possible that some would lie for money? About as much as any other human being. Do defense attorneys shop for qualified experts that are more liberal in their mental diagnosis of an individual? Absolutely. But it doesn't make the opinion a sham or a lie. It's still the informed opinion of a recognized expert in the field.
Becoming? The insanity defense has been around for a long time. Call your state legislator if you're displeased.
Mental culpability (mens rea) is one the base elements of almost every criminal offense - been that way for centuries. The purpose is that it serves society no benefit to try and deter the conduct of someone who doesn't know what they're doing - or doesn't know that it's wrong. Fortunately (IMO), outside of the death penalty, most of criminal law is centered around the benefit of society and not the thirst for blood.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Buckin' A
Veritas Aequitas
Funny, as a police officer, I find that it tends to revolve around whether or not the prosecutor has a tee time. If so, better give a sweet deal so there's no risk of going to trial. The problem is that prosecutors who get a rep for cutting deals get bullied by defense attorneys, no matter how solid the case.
I personally don't see how giving crack cocaine dealers/spouse beaters/thieves with multiple convictions judicical release helps society at all. They have shown that they shown no remorse by repeating the crime or another. This has nothing to do with this case, it's just my little rant.
As far as this case is concerned, I don't see how a woman who drowned her children can contribute anything positive to society...she certainly didn't even look out for her own children.
Upvote
0
Uh...yes. And that's party of my argument against the "Public opinion is never more right than a jury" argument. The jury IS public opinion...it's 12 people who know nothing except what they're allowed to be told. Hence my problem with the "I trust the jury by default" crowd.
Upvote
0
Tibs is largely correct about this particular jury. Don't blame the defense for being good, blame the prosecution for being inept. Regardless, it's one thing to say "It's my opinion that so and so did it" and quite another to suggest the jury got it wrong. As SD - I think it was - said, the people on her jury were there with the express purpose of hearing a case, and they heard every piece of testimony, etc. Volumes more information than any one of us has heard.
You know how I feel about crimes against children, BL.. I'd just as soon light this bitch up, but I don't agree with the attack on the jury or the legal system.
BL said:
I would like to believe that on the same facts, we'd see the same result. But, I'm not stupid. Chances are high a poor black single inner-city mom would not have prevailed on an insanity D... at least in my view... and that, to me, is an indictment of humans and their prejudice, not the system.
Upvote
0
Wow...touchy much? Never said a thing about you personally...no need to make it that way when it wasn't.
Part A of what I have bolded above...my question is by who? By the attorneys? By the judge? They aren't making the decision. The jury is 12 "regular" people. They make up their own standards, and if they believe what they want to believe (a la OJ) then it doesn't matter what the "professional standards" are.
Part B above...you and I will just have to disagree, but that's not surprising since my experience is from a different angle regarding the mental health "experts" than yours (not passing judgement, just saying we're in different places).
Upvote
0