• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Why jury trials are an antiquated idea

D

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
25,749
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
They lead to trials often becoming popularity contests, with sympathetic defendants getting off no matter how clear their guilt is and also unpopular defendants getting convicted despite flaws in evidence.

Latest case in point is David Barajas who ran out of gas in his pickup shortly before reaching his house so he had his two sons push the truck to the driveway. Unfortunately a drunk driver hit the truck, killing the boys. Barajas went to his house, got a gun, and executed the drunk driver. However, despite he being unquestionably guilty of revenge murder of Jose Banda the jury acquitted him.

It also opens a can of worms. If Barajas was justified in killing Banda for killing his kin, would Banda's kin be justified in hunting down Barajas and killing him in turn? And so on? Obviously that cannot be tolerated in a civilized society and if the jury system leads to revenge murderers getting off simply because they appear sympathetic to twelve ignorant (lawyers tend to weed out anybody who isn't) citizens then it is high time to follow most of the world and get rid or significantly modify the jury system.

Texas Dad David Barajas Acquitted of Murdering Man Who Killed Sons
 
tl;dr - jury trials are antiquated because too many bitches and negroes get away with keeping the white man down
 
You know, you were making quite a bit of sense until i noticed it was a Texas Jury. Then the trial result made more sense.

The Gun Enthusiasts have made this a country, esp. Texas, where we must work to preserve the right of any gun owner to kill someone for just about any reason.
It really is sad, but it is not a surprise.
And while i would agree that 'something should be done' it is not the jury model of courtroom proceedings. It's the expecations that anyone angry or afraid or offended or pushed around should have the right to pop off and fire away.
 
Derec said:
They lead to trials often becoming popularity contests, with sympathetic defendants getting off no matter how clear their guilt is and also unpopular defendants getting convicted despite flaws in evidence.

Latest case in point is David Barajas who ran out of gas in his pickup shortly before reaching his house so he had his two sons push the truck to the driveway. Unfortunately a drunk driver hit the truck, killing the boys. Barajas went to his house, got a gun, and executed the drunk driver. However, despite he being unquestionably guilty of revenge murder of Jose Banda the jury acquitted him.

It also opens a can of worms. If Barajas was justified in killing Banda for killing his kin, would Banda's kin be justified in hunting down Barajas and killing him in turn? And so on? Obviously that cannot be tolerated in a civilized society and if the jury system leads to revenge murderers getting off simply because they appear sympathetic to twelve ignorant (lawyers tend to weed out anybody who isn't) citizens then it is high time to follow most of the world and get rid or significantly modify the jury system.

Texas Dad David Barajas Acquitted of Murdering Man Who Killed Sons
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it be better to just have a better educated populace all around?
 
laughing dog said:
Derec said:
They lead to trials often becoming popularity contests, with sympathetic defendants getting off no matter how clear their guilt is and also unpopular defendants getting convicted despite flaws in evidence.

Latest case in point is David Barajas who ran out of gas in his pickup shortly before reaching his house so he had his two sons push the truck to the driveway. Unfortunately a drunk driver hit the truck, killing the boys. Barajas went to his house, got a gun, and executed the drunk driver. However, despite he being unquestionably guilty of revenge murder of Jose Banda the jury acquitted him.

It also opens a can of worms. If Barajas was justified in killing Banda for killing his kin, would Banda's kin be justified in hunting down Barajas and killing him in turn? And so on? Obviously that cannot be tolerated in a civilized society and if the jury system leads to revenge murderers getting off simply because they appear sympathetic to twelve ignorant (lawyers tend to weed out anybody who isn't) citizens then it is high time to follow most of the world and get rid or significantly modify the jury system.

Texas Dad David Barajas Acquitted of Murdering Man Who Killed Sons
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it be better to just have a better educated populace all around?
Click to expand...

no. Can't be outraged if you do that.
 
PyramidHead said:
Juries are completely within their rights to ignore laws they disagree with. I'm not even joking about that.
Click to expand...
Proving my point about the ridiculousness of the system.

- - - Updated - - -

ksen said:
tl;dr - jury trials are antiquated because too many bitches and negroes get away with keeping the white man down
Click to expand...
Except in this case it was one hispanic man murdering another. But maybe you can make one of them into a "white hispanic" (like Zimmermann) to make it a racial narrative that you apparently desire so much.

- - - Updated - - -

EricK said:
Why do you say he was unquestionably guilty. That is not clear from the link you provided, nor the link from that page to here: http://www.click2houston.com/news/t...killing-drunk-driver-who-killed-sons/27609248
Click to expand...
I was following the case since the beginning. There is no way he isn't guilty. If you believe he is I've got some oceanfront property in San Antonio to sell you.
 
EricK said:
Why do you say he was unquestionably guilty. That is not clear from the link you provided, nor the link from that page to here: http://www.click2houston.com/news/t...killing-drunk-driver-who-killed-sons/27609248
Click to expand...

But investigators never recovered a gun and didn't have an eyewitness to the shooting.
Click to expand...

It is possible the drunk driver committed suicide and then hid the gun in a place where it has yet to be found. Of course, the "no eye witness" thing is a problem. Since no one saw the guy drive into the truck and kill the two boys, we can't be sure what happened at all.
 
Bronzeage said:
It is possible the drunk driver committed suicide and then hid the gun in a place where it has yet to be found.
Click to expand...
Yeah he hid the gun right after killing himself. And of course, the father's gun going missing right after he went to his house and returned is merely a coincidence.

Of course, the "no eye witness" thing is a problem. Since no one saw the guy drive into the truck and kill the two boys, we can't be sure what happened at all.
Click to expand...
Many murders happen when there is nobody there to see it happen.

Face it, this guy got away with murder because he is a sympathetic defendant and because juries let their emotions rule their verdict.
 
Derec said:
Yeah he hid the gun right after killing himself. And of course, the father's gun going missing right after he went to his house and returned is merely a coincidence.

Of course, the "no eye witness" thing is a problem. Since no one saw the guy drive into the truck and kill the two boys, we can't be sure what happened at all.
Click to expand...
Many murders happen when there is nobody there to see it happen.

Face it, this guy got away with murder because he is a sympathetic defendant and because juries let their emotions rule their verdict.
Click to expand...

Happens all the time, especially in "Stand your ground" and "castle" defenses.
 
I think we should asking ourselves what he could have done to avoid having his kids getting killed by a drunk driver. You never know when a drunk driver will collide with your car if you are out of gas.
Derec said:
Yeah he hid the gun right after killing himself. And of course, the father's gun going missing right after he went to his house and returned is merely a coincidence.

Of course, the "no eye witness" thing is a problem. Since no one saw the guy drive into the truck and kill the two boys, we can't be sure what happened at all.
Click to expand...
Many murders happen when there is nobody there to see it happen.

Face it, this guy got away with murder because he is a sympathetic defendant and because juries let their emotions rule their verdict.
Click to expand...
*swooooooooooooosh*
 
AthenaAwakened said:
PyramidHead said:
Juries are completely within their rights to ignore laws they disagree with. I'm not even joking about that.
Click to expand...

that is called jury nullification, and it is the law.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it can be a good thing. For instance, we were just talking about Shaneen Allen who is facing major prison time for mistakenly taking a gun across state lines. The prosecutor in that case is just a complete ass. For her sake I hope the jurry says the law in this case is completely stupid.

Derec, yes jury trials suck. You got a better system figured out?
 
As Aristotle said: "Oligarchies have elections, Democracies have lotteries."

A jury is the only function of our government that is determined by a lottery: the genuine participation and exercise of power by randomly chosen citizens.

As long as our laws are made by oligarchs, who answer to special interests, not the people, juries are absolutely essential, as they are the only limit that ordinary citizens can apply to the oligarchs.

Dare I ask what sort of totalitarian horror Derec would propose to replace juries with?
 
A jury is the worst system for a trial except for all the others tried so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom