Zimmerman, murderer and plagiarist

[Audley Strange]

@ Seth & LakLak. Thanks for the clarification about the SYG. Error.

Also @ Seth. Yes I do understand guilt implies having done something wrong. You're technically correct, but I think it was a bit nitpicky.

@ Blind Groper. You said...

My low opinion of the jury system comes from having served twice on juries myself. The number of total blithering idiots on those juries was unbelievable. Not only that, but the ignorance the jury members had for the most basic things acted to create long delays in the judicial process. Professional and trained jurors would lead to more accurate verdicts and shorter trials.

Do you include yourself in the number of blithering idiots? Or are you just being a dehumanising Elitist again?

Also you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to make the claim that professional jurors would lead to more accurate verdicts or shorter trials. In fact I'd suggest if anything paying people to be on juries would increase the length of trials, since they'd be getting paid for it. Assertion certainly but I can at least point to a correlation in the legal industry in which professionals paid by the hour drag their heels because it is more profitable to sustain a case than close it.

[Blind groper]

To Audley

Most professionals in NZ are paid a salary rather than by time. Assuming this was done with professional jurors, they would have every incentive to end trials quickly.

Do I consider myself a blithering idiot? I think it is kinda obvious that I do not. However, even leaving myself out of the equation, my observations of the performance of my fellow jurors is that there is an enormous variation in how good they are at the job. Some have no ability whatever, and others are much smarter. It makes great good sense to me that if you choose people who are demonstrably smart, and you then give them appropriate training, the outcome will be better.

[laklak]

The one and only time I served on a jury I was surprised and heartened by how seriously all those average Joe, blithering idiots took the whole process. I was surprised and heartened that the questions sent out to the judge were intelligent, concise and on point. I was surprised and heartened that race and class did not come into play (black defendant, armed robbery, mixed race and sex jury, black judge). It is a serious business, weighing a person's guilt or innocence, and you're very cognizant of what you're doing and what the consequences of your decision will be to the defendant.

[Jason]

Most professionals in NZ are paid a salary rather than by time. Assuming this was done with professional jurors, they would have every incentive to end trials quickly.

Why? So they could get on with the next trial sooner? Also, why would this expeditious 'incentive' be a good thing for the justice system? Rushing to judgement isn't really a good thing.

[laklak]

I need a beer, lets fry the fuck and hit the pub, lads.

[Blind groper]

Rushing to judgement isn't really a good thing.

I do not see it as "rushing to judgment". But a person who knows what he/she is doing will make clear cut decisions without wasting time. If we could cut the lengths of trials by (say) a third, then over a 12 month period, it would save the taxpayer millions, or even hundreds of millions of dollars.

Most of that time saving would come from the fact that prosecuting and defending lawyers would not have to teach granny how to suck eggs each and every time there was a jury trial.

[FBM]

I need a beer, lets fry the fuck and hit the pub, lads.

If he wasn't guilty, he wouldn't be in court. Case closed.

[laklak]

I need a beer, lets fry the fuck and hit the pub, lads.

If he wasn't guilty, he wouldn't be in court. Case closed.

The cops don't arrest people for nothing, you know. Besides, I just don't like the look of the cunt, he's got squinty eyes.

[FBM]

I need a beer, lets fry the fuck and hit the pub, lads.

If he wasn't guilty, he wouldn't be in court. Case closed.

The cops don't arrest people for nothing, you know. Besides, I just don't like the look of the cunt, he's got squinty eyes.

And he just looks so uncomfortable about being in court, handcuffed. Yep. He's hiding something, alright. He done it.

[Seth]

Seth,

This post contains a series of clear attacks on another member. This is a warning to make your point without resorting to such invective or you will be facing a suspension.

XC

Too fucking right it does!

My point was that he made a clear attack on me, so I returned the favor. This one was particularly heinous and egregious and I decided to make that clear. I will not tolerate such accusations, ever, and I will not allow such statements to remain posted without posting an appropriate rebuttal to stand alongside it. Suspend away if you want, or bin his post and mine, which I'd prefer.

[Blind groper]

There is an important difference, Seth, between calling someone something insulting, and making a general statement that only becomes insulting if you take it personally.

I have several times made such a general statement, which you responded to with ad homs directed against me personally. Not that it bothers me. I have the hide of a rhino, which is why I do not respond to your personal insults in like kind. But you would keep further away from moderator troubles, if you tried to respond more appropriately. There are clever ways available to get your point across without drawing moderator phlegm.

[JimC]

There is an important difference, Seth, between calling someone something insulting, and making a general statement that only becomes insulting if you take it personally.

I have several times made such a general statement, which you responded to with ad homs directed against me personally. Not that it bothers me. I have the hide of a rhino, which is why I do not respond to your personal insults in like kind. But you would keep further away from moderator troubles, if you tried to respond more appropriately. There are clever ways available to get your point across without drawing moderator phlegm.

Seth is now considering appropriate calibers...

[pErvinalia]

@ Seth & LakLak. Thanks for the clarification about the SYG. Error.

Also @ Seth. Yes I do understand guilt implies having done something wrong. You're technically correct, but I think it was a bit nitpicky.

@ Blind Groper. You said...

My low opinion of the jury system comes from having served twice on juries myself. The number of total blithering idiots on those juries was unbelievable. Not only that, but the ignorance the jury members had for the most basic things acted to create long delays in the judicial process. Professional and trained jurors would lead to more accurate verdicts and shorter trials.

Do you include yourself in the number of blithering idiots? Or are you just being a dehumanising Elitist again?

It may be elitist to say it, but the real question is - Is it true? Looking at the facts of what the average person believes, and the irrational behaviours and thought-patterns humans instinctively engage in (unless they are aware of them and fight their occurrence), it's not at all controversial to conclude that there are irrational decisions being taken in jury rooms.

[JimC]

I'm with Rumpole of the Bailey on this; the jury system may have flaws, but its connection to the population as a whole is still worth it...

[pErvinalia]

There is an important difference, Seth, between calling someone something insulting, and making a general statement that only becomes insulting if you take it personally.

I have several times made such a general statement, which you responded to with ad homs directed against me personally. Not that it bothers me. I have the hide of a rhino, which is why I do not respond to your personal insults in like kind. But you would keep further away from moderator troubles, if you tried to respond more appropriately. There are clever ways available to get your point across without drawing moderator phlegm.

Huh? You called him a "vigilante" and a "yellow-bellied coward".