| Top Posters Since October 2003 |
|---|
dp1 | 4000+ | orolan | 4000+ | Navigatr1 | 2500+ | Silvert... | 2500+ | 1dadof5 | 2500+ | Valerie | 2000+ | steve | 1500+ | victori... | 1000+ | myoung | 1000+ | rabbitr... | 750+ | HPierce | 750+ | poetsdr... | 750+ | Renunci... | 750+ | lj | 750+ | fallenone | 500+ | DoTheCr... | 500+ | marta | 500+ | momhelp... | 500+ | prozac | 500+ | rebel51 | 500+ | PVulcan | 250+ | anti | 250+ | rodsmith | 250+ | LockEmUp | 250+ | Quest | 250+ | artie | 250+ | KK | 250+ | LostTime | 250+ | TGoodman | 250+ | amberleaf | 250+ | deadmom... | 250+ | brennus | 100+ | scarlett | 100+ | mousein... | 100+ | thepar | 100+ | assumpt... | 100+ | lildrafire | 100+ | JakeLF | 100+ | MrTruth | 100+ | june5 | 100+ |
| Newest Users |
|---|
| Registered within the last 72 hours. | | 1success1 | | buttwaxer | | chooch | | genospice | | kawaski | | kelstress | | unknowable |
|
|
Forum: Old Message Board
Thread (Discussion): "no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"
Switch to Flat View
Message 118335 (In Reply to Message 118325)
Re: "no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"
Posted by x_marta
on Oct 17, 2003 08:19 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
orolan wrote:
>
> Considering the number of people sent to prison by juries who
> are being exonerated through DNA testing, it's obvious
> something is rotten in the system.
And that would be what percentage of the total incarcerated?
> The juries chose to believe the prosecutor and/or the victim
> in these cases, for some reason believing them to be more
> credible than the defendant.
Why do you assume this, instead of thinking that perhaps the available evidence was compelling enough at the time of trial to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt? It's all fine and dandy to second-guess a jury with fresh DNA evidence in hand, but in the absence of such evidence, there are less absolute things to vindicate or damn the accused. So DNA evidence is perfect and other forms of evidence are not. I agree that, where relevant, DNA evidence should be mandated. That does not mean, however, that a jury is incapable of making a reasonable conclusion of guilt based on other sufficient other evidence. The bottom line is that a wrongful conviction is a travesty, but have them you will, in ANY system of justice you choose, and no matter how many evidentiary improvements you make.
My question is: how would you change the justice system to fix the problem with he said/she said rape cases?
And let's get the definition of "he said/she said" out of the way first so that we're both talking about the same thing.
> Doesn't appear to me that juries are very good at telling who > is doing the lying.
And I have yet to see statistics, reliable or otherwise, that make me think there is a problem. It's not that I'm unwilling to accept that there is one, I just won't do so on the basis of what are clearly your FEELINGS, instead of cold, hard data.
> To quote George Carlin(I think); "Would you trust your
> freedom to 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury
> duty?"
This is a stupid joke. I would LOVE to serve on a jury. I see it as part of my civic duty. Where is your sense of responsibility? How will anyone ever find justice if people like you (with unquestionable sense of fairness and good judgment) don't serve on juries? Oh, yeah, . . . that's right, they DO.
| See an abbreviation or acronym, but don't know what it stands for? Consult
the Glossary. |
Switch to Flat View
Message 118325
Re: "no" means "no"...or maybe "more wine?"
Posted by x_orolan
on Oct 17, 2003 11:35 AM | Also by x_orolan
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
Thread
118093, x_simon, Oct 12, 2003 03:58 PM ["no" means "no"...or maybe &qu...]
118098, x_SurvivorForeve, Oct 13, 2003 02:19 AM [Re: "no" means "no&quo...]
118125, x_HPierce, Oct 13, 2003 08:25 AM [well considering.]
118150, x_marta, Oct 13, 2003 11:08 AM [Re: well considering.]
118138, x_orolan, Oct 13, 2003 10:14 AM [Re: "no" means "no"...or ...]
118164, x_marta, Oct 13, 2003 04:36 PM [Re: "no" means "no"...o...]
118173, x_orolan, Oct 13, 2003 07:13 PM [Re: "no" means "no"...]
118192, x_marta, Oct 13, 2003 10:13 PM [Re: "no" means "no&quo...]
118216, x_orolan, Oct 14, 2003 12:12 PM [Re: "no" means "no...]
118236, x_marta, Oct 14, 2003 04:00 PM [Re: "no" means "...]
118247, x_orolan, Oct 14, 2003 07:31 PM [Re: "no" means &...]
118252, x_marta, Oct 14, 2003 08:41 PM [Re: "no" means...]
118265, x_losttime, Oct 15, 2003 05:11 AM [Re: "no"...]
118267, x_marta, Oct 15, 2003 09:36 AM [Re: "no"...]
118303, x_losttime, Oct 16, 2003 01:53 AM [Re: "no...]
118316, x_marta, Oct 16, 2003 07:45 PM [Re: "n...]
118320, x_losttime, Oct 17, 2003 01:09 AM [Re: &...]
118334, x_marta, Oct 17, 2003 08:06 PM [Re: &...]
118312, x_orolan, Oct 16, 2003 12:33 PM [Re: "no" m...]
118317, x_marta, Oct 16, 2003 07:48 PM [Re: "no"...]
118325, x_orolan, Oct 17, 2003 11:35 AM [Re: "no&q...]
118335, x_marta, Oct 17, 2003 08:19 PM [Re: "n...]
118339, x_orolan, Oct 17, 2003 09:45 PM [Re: &qu...]
118347, x_marta, Oct 19, 2003 04:57 AM [Re:]
118351, x_orolan, Oct 19, 2003 06:56 PM [Re:]
118358, x_marta, Oct 20, 2003 01:01 PM [Re...]
118361, x_orolan, Oct 20, 2003 02:31 PM [...]
118365, x_marta, Oct 20, 2003 06:13 PM [...]
146015, Rejected
118188, x_losttime, Oct 13, 2003 08:29 PM [Re: "no" means "no&quo...]
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
|
|
