Evidence for: he didn’t match the victim’s initial description, he had a debilitating disease that made him unlikely to have managed a rape, his alibi was corroborated by three witnesses at trial.
Verdict: guilty.
DNA exonerated him.
The jury chose wrong.
Again, you’re wrong.[/quote]
False identification by a witness.[/quote]
You’re a fucking idiot. Really.
The jury was presented with a series of truths. One of these truths was that the victim identified this man as her assailant. The other truths were that he was very sick and had an alibi corroborated by three witnesses.
The jury had to make a choice. They weren’t certain–no one ever is–but they chose. Incorrectly. The jury fucked up.
…again, you’re wrong.[/quote]
“To conduct the study, Spencer employed a replication analysis of jury verdicts, comparing decisions of actual jurors with decisions of judges who were hearing the cases they were deciding. In other words, as a jury was deliberating about a particular verdict, its judge filled out a questionnaire giving what he or she believed to be the correct verdict.”
This is a comparison of judge’s opinion vs. jury verdict.
…again, you’re wrong.[/quote]
“To conduct the study, Spencer employed a replication analysis of jury verdicts, comparing decisions of actual jurors with decisions of judges who were hearing the cases they were deciding. In other words, as a jury was deliberating about a particular verdict, its judge filled out a questionnaire giving what he or she believed to be the correct verdict.”
This is a comparison of judge’s opinion vs. jury verdict.
Not truth vs. jury verdict[/quote]
Under the assumption that a percentage of the conflicts will go to the jury and another percentage will go to the judge in final analysis. And this is a perfectly valid assumption.
So, again, what the fuck is your contention?
That juries don’t choose incorrectly?
That the American courtroom is a bastion of certainty?
You are fucking wrong. Truly, inarguably wrong. Get over it.
…again, you’re wrong.[/quote]
“To conduct the study, Spencer employed a replication analysis of jury verdicts, comparing decisions of actual jurors with decisions of judges who were hearing the cases they were deciding. In other words, as a jury was deliberating about a particular verdict, its judge filled out a questionnaire giving what he or she believed to be the correct verdict.”
This is a comparison of judge’s opinion vs. jury verdict.
Not truth vs. jury verdict[/quote]
Under the assumption that a percentage of the conflicts will go to the jury and another percentage will go to the judge in final analysis. And this is a perfectly valid assumption.
So, again, what the fuck is your contention?
That juries don’t choose incorrectly?
That the American courtroom is a bastion of certainty?
You are fucking wrong. Truly, inarguably wrong. Get over it.[/quote]
You are arguing against something I never stated.
My point here is; while our system of justice may be imperfect, at least the accused gets a chance to defend themselves in court. There simply can be no such thing as justice without the right to defense. You are talking about appointing a death panel to weigh risk and convenience to decide whether to kill someone or arrest them and give them their day in court.
Let me put it another way; if you allow the government to kill whoever they want for fear that the accused might kill whoever they want, how will we tell the good guys from the bad?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Under the assumption that a percentage of the conflicts will go to the jury and another percentage will go to the judge in final analysis. And this is a perfectly valid assumption [/quote]
Another point I’d like to make is that any study that bases its outcome on an assumption is a crock.
This study had nothing to do with truth vs verdict, and therefore is utterly useless in an argument of truth vs verdict.
…again, you’re wrong.[/quote]
“To conduct the study, Spencer employed a replication analysis of jury verdicts, comparing decisions of actual jurors with decisions of judges who were hearing the cases they were deciding. In other words, as a jury was deliberating about a particular verdict, its judge filled out a questionnaire giving what he or she believed to be the correct verdict.”
This is a comparison of judge’s opinion vs. jury verdict.
Not truth vs. jury verdict[/quote]
Under the assumption that a percentage of the conflicts will go to the jury and another percentage will go to the judge in final analysis. And this is a perfectly valid assumption.
So, again, what the fuck is your contention?
That juries don’t choose incorrectly?
That the American courtroom is a bastion of certainty?
You are fucking wrong. Truly, inarguably wrong. Get over it.[/quote]
You are arguing against something I never stated.
My point here is; while our system of justice may be imperfect, at least the accused gets a chance to defend themselves in court.[/quote]
War is not a system of justice.
[quote]
Let me put it another way; if you allow the government to kill whoever they want for fear that the accused might kill whoever they want, how will we tell the good guys from the bad?[/quote]
Welcome to life on planet earth. We bomb people because they bombed us. They bombed us because we sold bombs to other guys who then bombed them. And so on. We don’t have to try non-American combatants.
Your argument is Utopian and quixotic. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi deserved a trial far less than did the civilians at Dresden or Hiroshima or in the Mekong Delta.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Under the assumption that a percentage of the conflicts will go to the jury and another percentage will go to the judge in final analysis. And this is a perfectly valid assumption [/quote]
Another point I’d like to make is that any study that bases its outcome on an assumption is a crock.
This study had nothing to do with truth vs verdict, and therefore is utterly useless in an argument of truth vs verdict.[/quote]
Assumptions are part of life and of academic research. What matters is how probable they are; this one is probably beyond any kind of doubt. Stop nitpicking.
…again, you’re wrong.[/quote]
“To conduct the study, Spencer employed a replication analysis of jury verdicts, comparing decisions of actual jurors with decisions of judges who were hearing the cases they were deciding. In other words, as a jury was deliberating about a particular verdict, its judge filled out a questionnaire giving what he or she believed to be the correct verdict.”
This is a comparison of judge’s opinion vs. jury verdict.
Not truth vs. jury verdict[/quote]
Under the assumption that a percentage of the conflicts will go to the jury and another percentage will go to the judge in final analysis. And this is a perfectly valid assumption.
So, again, what the fuck is your contention?
That juries don’t choose incorrectly?
That the American courtroom is a bastion of certainty?
You are fucking wrong. Truly, inarguably wrong. Get over it.[/quote]
You are arguing against something I never stated.
My point here is; while our system of justice may be imperfect, at least the accused gets a chance to defend themselves in court.[/quote]
War is not a system of justice.
[quote]
Let me put it another way; if you allow the government to kill whoever they want for fear that the accused might kill whoever they want, how will we tell the good guys from the bad?[/quote]
Welcome to life on planet earth. We bomb people because they bombed us. They bombed us because we sold bombs to other guys who then bombed them. And so on. We don’t have to try non-American combatants.
Your argument is Utopian and quixotic. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi deserved a trial far less than did the civilians at Dresden or Hiroshima or in the Mekong Delta.[/quote]
War is not in question here. Do you really think I would defend the ‘rights’ of our enemies during a time of war? Get real.
We are talking about the killing of terrorism suspects, not war-time enemy combatants.
Assumptions are part of life and of academic research. What matters is how probable they are; this one is probably beyond any kind of doubt. Stop nitpicking.[/quote]
Probability and assumption have no place in a discussion of truth, just as hypothesis and theory have no place in a discussion of law.
Just because I reject your willingness to accept any piece of evidence that has an agreeable-sounding title without reading the damn thing first doesn’t mean I’m nitpicking. It means I don’t accept bullshit as gold just because the little plastic label sticking out of it says ‘gold’.
[quote]
Let me put it another way; if you allow the government to kill whoever they want for fear that the accused might kill whoever they want, how will we tell the good guys from the bad?[/quote]
It’s easy.
The good guy wear a tie.
The bad guy wear a beard.
When in doubt, check which one has been involved in a sex scandal.
It’s the good guy.
…again, you’re wrong.[/quote]
“To conduct the study, Spencer employed a replication analysis of jury verdicts, comparing decisions of actual jurors with decisions of judges who were hearing the cases they were deciding. In other words, as a jury was deliberating about a particular verdict, its judge filled out a questionnaire giving what he or she believed to be the correct verdict.”
This is a comparison of judge’s opinion vs. jury verdict.
Not truth vs. jury verdict[/quote]
Under the assumption that a percentage of the conflicts will go to the jury and another percentage will go to the judge in final analysis. And this is a perfectly valid assumption.
So, again, what the fuck is your contention?
That juries don’t choose incorrectly?
That the American courtroom is a bastion of certainty?
You are fucking wrong. Truly, inarguably wrong. Get over it.[/quote]
You are arguing against something I never stated.
My point here is; while our system of justice may be imperfect, at least the accused gets a chance to defend themselves in court.[/quote]
War is not a system of justice.
[quote]
Let me put it another way; if you allow the government to kill whoever they want for fear that the accused might kill whoever they want, how will we tell the good guys from the bad?[/quote]
Welcome to life on planet earth. We bomb people because they bombed us. They bombed us because we sold bombs to other guys who then bombed them. And so on. We don’t have to try non-American combatants.
Your argument is Utopian and quixotic. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi deserved a trial far less than did the civilians at Dresden or Hiroshima or in the Mekong Delta.[/quote]
War is not in question here. Do you really think I would defend the ‘rights’ of our enemies during a time of war? Get real.
We are talking about the killing of terrorism suspects, not war-time enemy combatants.[/quote]
What was Anwar al-Aulaqi if not an enemy combatant?
…again, you’re wrong.[/quote]
“To conduct the study, Spencer employed a replication analysis of jury verdicts, comparing decisions of actual jurors with decisions of judges who were hearing the cases they were deciding. In other words, as a jury was deliberating about a particular verdict, its judge filled out a questionnaire giving what he or she believed to be the correct verdict.”
This is a comparison of judge’s opinion vs. jury verdict.
Not truth vs. jury verdict[/quote]
Under the assumption that a percentage of the conflicts will go to the jury and another percentage will go to the judge in final analysis. And this is a perfectly valid assumption.
So, again, what the fuck is your contention?
That juries don’t choose incorrectly?
That the American courtroom is a bastion of certainty?
You are fucking wrong. Truly, inarguably wrong. Get over it.[/quote]
You are arguing against something I never stated.
My point here is; while our system of justice may be imperfect, at least the accused gets a chance to defend themselves in court.[/quote]
War is not a system of justice.
[quote]
Let me put it another way; if you allow the government to kill whoever they want for fear that the accused might kill whoever they want, how will we tell the good guys from the bad?[/quote]
Welcome to life on planet earth. We bomb people because they bombed us. They bombed us because we sold bombs to other guys who then bombed them. And so on. We don’t have to try non-American combatants.
Your argument is Utopian and quixotic. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi deserved a trial far less than did the civilians at Dresden or Hiroshima or in the Mekong Delta.[/quote]
War is not in question here. Do you really think I would defend the ‘rights’ of our enemies during a time of war? Get real.
We are talking about the killing of terrorism suspects, not war-time enemy combatants.[/quote]
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was not an enemy combatant?
Edit: Try this, who is it more acceptable to kill without a trial: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, or two children living in Saxony?