Jury Duty

[fedhopeful]

You're either not being completely honest or you're not making sense. Let's see which it is......

In your opinion, do you feel that of the of people who are arrested, and then charged with a crime, and then true billed by the grand jury, and then brought to trial:

(A) Less than 50% are actually guilty

(B) More than 50% are actually guilty


If your answer is (A) then you are saying that in your opinion the police and district attorney in your area are wrong more often than they are right when it comes to arresting and charging people (either that or they are very shabby in presenting their evidence). That's a serious problem in my opinion.

If your answer is (B) then you absolutely, positively cannot say that you hold no opinion on the probability of the defendant's guilt or innocence.

It's a simple matter of mathematics. If the percentage of people charged and indicted is greater than 50% of the people who are arrested, AND if the percentage of people convicted is greater than 50% of the people who were indicted and tried, then the police and DA are obviously arresting and charging more guilty people than they are arresting and charging not guilty people. This point is not debatable unless you wish to debunk the commonly accepted theories of mathematics.


In my post you will see that I stated that I would acquit or convict based solely on the evidence presented in court. That means that I could acquit a person who I believed to be guilty, because the prosecution failed to prove guilt to me beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence. That is called being an impartial juror. Impartiality does not mean having an empty head or having no opinion, it means affording the defendant the benefit of the doubt, considering only the evidence presented in court.

I would bet the farm I have a bit more mathematics knowledge and the theories within than you do. I would bet my farm and yours.

Not the issue however so I won't address your mathematics theory. You don't need mathematics to determine what you believe about a person. With that same ignorant thinking you would also think that every Asian is smart. WTF???? Afterall, mathematics/percentages say a large portion of Asians are very intelligent in math/science. Does that mean every single Asian that crosses my eyes I should *THINK* they're smart??? HELL NO. But you would by your same foolish logic.

This has nothing to do with math. Period. And don't tell me what I can or can't believe. I would stop making assumptions about every one else if I was you because your assumptions are worth squat in regards to what I believe or what I'm capable of wiping clean. Its very possible to see a defendant and not assume they're guilty just because they're on trial when you know nothing about the case (that's being impartial, and that's what the purpose of a trial is.). Why? Because you weren't there. That's why DAs and investigators should be meticulous in the cases they present, because they have to convince someone who wasn't there of what happened. By your theory if you believe they're guilty already why not convict them all? I think you're delusional in thinking you could be fair if you already think they're guilty.

If you cant withhold an opinion, then that's your closemindedness and THAT'S a real problem. Not the fact that myself and others can go in with a clean head and not have judgemental beliefs during the process.

Oh, and math has nothing to do with it. Don't try to teach math to someone who once again would bet the farm knows more about the subject than you ever will.

[Odin]

I would bet the farm I have a bit more mathematics knowledge and the theories within than you do. I would bet my farm and yours.

Not the issue however so I won't address your mathematics theory. You don't need mathematics to determine what you believe about a person. With that same ignorant thinking you would also think that every Asian is smart. WTF???? Afterall, mathematics/percentages say a large portion of Asians are very intelligent in math/science. Does that mean every single Asian that crosses my eyes I should *THINK* they're smart??? HELL NO. But you would by your same foolish logic.

Wrong.

BUT if, as you claim, a large portion of Asians are very intelligent in math/science then if you pointed to an Asian person and asked me "Do you suppose that guy is good at math/science or not" I could say "most likely" and it would be a logical statement. That doesn't mean it is a correct statement, but it is supported by facts that make it a logical statement, and it does not make one impartial or prejudiced to arrive at a logical conclusion if one has facts to support that conclusion.

This has nothing to do with math. Period. And don't tell me what I can or can't believe. I would stop making assumptions about every one else if I was you because your assumptions are worth squat in regards to what I believe or what I'm capable of wiping clean. Its very possible to see a defendant and not assume they're guilty just because they're on trial when you know nothing about the case (that's being impartial, and that's what the purpose of a trial is.). Why? Because you weren't there. That's why DAs and investigators should be meticulous in the cases they present, because they have to convince someone who wasn't there of what happened. By your theory if you believe they're guilty already why not convict them all? I think you're delusional in thinking you could be fair if you already think they're guilty.

If you cant withhold an opinion, then that's your closemindedness and THAT'S a real problem. Not the fact that myself and others can go in with a clean head and not have judgemental beliefs during the process.

Oh, and math has nothing to do with it. Don't try to teach math to someone who once again would bet the farm knows more about the subject than you ever will.

You think that you're without opinion and without bias on every subject. That's fine, I just don't believe it.

[fedhopeful]

What "fact" do you have that a defendant is guilty prior to a trial? You don't have to answer that to me because at the end of the day it's of no real significance to me how you choose to answer that.

Believe what you want. I will no longer reply to this thread. Have a great day.

To the original poster, your question has been answered.

[not5150]

Odin... you are going to have a swell time in the Academy. Your classmates will LOVE you.

[seltzer]

DAYUMMMMM this thread took a left turn at Albuquerque! :p

[redhead]

I have always wanted to sit in on Jury Duty. I have only been called once, and it came at a very bad time for me financially. I asked to be dismissed due to financial reasons and was granted by the judge, as I was one of only 10 to be dismissed. There were still over 50 people in the court room.

Now, the fun part. I had just happened to purchase a book on Amazon a few days prior. The name of the book was "Execution-the power to get things done"(a book written by a CEO about motivating your staff, which I read for a reason, not to get out of JD.) but on the binding on a black cover with gold type was "EXECUTION". As I was standing before the judge, with the binding facing him, the DA and public defender looked at each other and then I caught there eyes looking at the book, then laughing.

Case was a young male that had carjacked a car at gun point and kidnapped one of the occupants. Great fun!

As well, a good friend is a DA in the city I live in. Hey stated that since the county does not send summons via certified mail, there is no way that they can ever issue a warrant for f.t.a. There is no way for the county to verify the receipt of the summons either via the US mail losing it or someone taking your mail.etc.etc.etc.

[cntryboy0531]

DAYUMMMMM this thread took a left turn at Albuquerque! :p

Albuquerque?? Hell, it took the left turn in kukamunga. LOL.

[txinvestigator1]

Did ya'll see that movie called My Cousin Vinnie? Now that was funny.

[IB50]

Most people do not understand our court system. Evidence can be suppressed (god forbid) and prior criminal acts are not admissible. Case in point. We had a guy go to trial for assault 3rd (assaulting a police officer). He was found guilty (he was), but the defense argued that he was intoxicated, 19 years old, made good grades in school and had just made a stupid mistake. They gave him a slap on the hand. Time served (a few days) and probation. Now, what they couldn't know was that he has since (after he made bond, but before trial) been charged with 2 more counts of assaulting a police officer, not to mention the umpteen times he's been arrested on other charges and he is a known crack cocaine addict. Always remember that what you hear in a courtroom is maybee 1/10 of what happens on the street.

[Odin]

What "fact" do you have that a defendant is guilty prior to a trial? You don't have to answer that to me because at the end of the day it's of no real significance to me how you choose to answer that.

Believe what you want. I will no longer reply to this thread. Have a great day.

To the original poster, your question has been answered.

If the police, DA and grand jury are batting better than 50%, and I cannot imagine them arresting, charging and indicting more not guilty people than guilty people, then the statistical odds are that any person arrested, charged and indicted is more likely to be found guilty than to be acquitted.

[Odin]

Odin... you are going to have a swell time in the Academy. Your classmates will LOVE you.

How is that relevant to this discussion?

For what it's worth, I'm doing fine (only in the 2nd week so far) in all areas and have a 100% academic average and passed all portions of the PT test which we will have to pass at the end of the academy. Time will tell, but I expect to remain in the top 10% of my class throughout the academy. And yes, it has been a swell time so far. Mostly interesting stuff and learning new things every day.

[kia116]

quick question. Does pregnancy proclude you from j.d in the states? I was called up once {the only person I know who has been} and excused because I was not able to guarentee that I would be available for 3 months. I was just on 7 months pregnant at the time.

[seltzer]

Did ya'll see that movie called My Cousin Vinnie? Now that was funny.

Judge: I'm holding you in contempt
Vinnie: There's a effin suprise
Judge: What did you say?
Vinnie: huh?


Everything he just said is bullsh**!

Awesome movie! One of my fav's, although I haven't seen it in awhile!

[not5150]

Albuquerque?? Hell, it took the left turn in kukamunga. LOL.

Maybe Rancho Cucamonga

[Ranger__101]

quick question. Does pregnancy proclude you from j.d in the states? I was called up once {the only person I know who has been} and excused because I was not able to guarentee that I would be available for 3 months. I was just on 7 months pregnant at the time.

I'm sure it can be. If they expect a trial to last a long time they sure wan't to keep the jury pool as much as possible.