An Opinion - And Seek Others Opinions

[Hagar]

This post is just my opinion.  I'm very disturbed by my conclusions, and I'd like y'all, liberal & conservative, to contemplate it and give an honest answer.

The problem involves justice.  Since our population (and much of the judicial system) has been divided into ideological camps, and subdivided into groups within those camps, are we getting to the point were a fair jury trial is an impossibility?  If an innocent staunch conservative is on trial in San Francisco, I'd think his chances were slim he'd get off barring an airtight alibi.  A sexual harassment trial for instance, he said / she said.  Same for a liberal in say, Highland Park.  My biggest concern is a conservative Repub on trial in DC.  And, imo all this is only going to get worse.  

Do any of you see this as a problem, or am I seeing "monsters" where there are none?  A simple yes or no will suffice unless you want to elaborate. 

[TxHoops]

5 minutes ago, REBgp said:

This post is just my opinion.  I'm very disturbed by my conclusions, and I'd like y'all, liberal & conservative, to contemplate it and give an honest answer.

The problem involves justice.  Since our population (and much of the judicial system) has been divided into ideological camps, and subdivided into groups within those camps, are we getting to the point were a fair jury trial is an impossibility?  If an innocent staunch conservative is on trial in San Francisco, I'd think his chances were slim he'd get off barring an airtight alibi.  A sexual harassment trial for instance, he said / she said.  Same for a liberal in say, Highland Park.  My biggest concern is a conservative Repub on trial in DC.  And, imo all this is only going to get worse.  

Do any of you see this as a problem, or am I seeing "monsters" where there are none?  A simple yes or no will suffice unless you want to elaborate. 

I don’t think so anymore than it’s ever been.  The voir dire process is supposed to root out prejudices.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.  Obviously the more skilled the advocates, the better the odds are.  

Besides, there are still plenty of people out there who are unbiased either way.  Not everyone is as “out there” as the faithful on this board or the ones just as far out but to the left on the other side...

[TxHoops]

9 minutes ago, REBgp said:

This post is just my opinion.  I'm very disturbed by my conclusions, and I'd like y'all, liberal & conservative, to contemplate it and give an honest answer.

The problem involves justice.  Since our population (and much of the judicial system) has been divided into ideological camps, and subdivided into groups within those camps, are we getting to the point were a fair jury trial is an impossibility?  If an innocent staunch conservative is on trial in San Francisco, I'd think his chances were slim he'd get off barring an airtight alibi.  A sexual harassment trial for instance, he said / she said.  Same for a liberal in say, Highland Park.  My biggest concern is a conservative Repub on trial in DC.  And, imo all this is only going to get worse.  

Do any of you see this as a problem, or am I seeing "monsters" where there are none?  A simple yes or no will suffice unless you want to elaborate. 

By the way, you have done a pretty good job of expressing the angst felt by PoC in the South when standing trial for much of our history   

[Hagar]

4 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

I don’t think so anymore than it’s ever been.  The voir dire process is supposed to root out prejudices.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.  Obviously the more skilled the advocates, the better the odds are.  

Besides, there are still plenty of people out there who are unbiased either way.  Not everyone is as “out there” as the faithful on this board or the ones just as far out but to the left on the other side...

Thanks Hoops, especially since this is in your bailiwick.  And since I watch Bull, I'm familiar with the voir dire process, otherwise it'd be goggle city lol.

[Hagar]

10 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

By the way, you have done a pretty good job of expressing the angst felt by PoC in the South when standing trial for much of our history   

I contemplated that as I thought about this deal.  Not an enviable situation.  Sad and disgraceful part of our history.

[LumRaiderFan]

I believe that most decent folks will look for justice even when they have differing opinions.

If I were a juror and someone was on trial for a crime and happened to also be a homosexual, as a conservative, I may disagree with their life style but I would in no way hold that and/or use that against them...if I did, I may as well toss out my legitimacy as a Christian conservative.

I think this is the only way the SCOTUS works, they all have opinions, but must still seek justice.

I think this is how it should work, I'm also not ignorant enough to think this is how it always works.

[baddog]

2 hours ago, REBgp said:

This post is just my opinion.  I'm very disturbed by my conclusions, and I'd like y'all, liberal & conservative, to contemplate it and give an honest answer.

The problem involves justice.  Since our population (and much of the judicial system) has been divided into ideological camps, and subdivided into groups within those camps, are we getting to the point were a fair jury trial is an impossibility?  If an innocent staunch conservative is on trial in San Francisco, I'd think his chances were slim he'd get off barring an airtight alibi.  A sexual harassment trial for instance, he said / she said.  Same for a liberal in say, Highland Park.  My biggest concern is a conservative Repub on trial in DC.  And, imo all this is only going to get worse.  

Do any of you see this as a problem, or am I seeing "monsters" where there are none?  A simple yes or no will suffice unless you want to elaborate. 

 

2 hours ago, TxHoops said:

I don’t think so anymore than it’s ever been.  The voir dire process is supposed to root out prejudices.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.  Obviously the more skilled the advocates, the better the odds are.  

Besides, there are still plenty of people out there who are unbiased either way.  Not everyone is as “out there” as the faithful on this board or the ones just as far out but to the left on the other side...

The voir dire process aids in reducing prejudices as does change of venue. Maybe I am wrong, but most of today's trials are not about guilt or innocence ( except for your O.J.'s and such). Most court cases are relegated to plea bargains for sentence reductions to speed up the process. Perry Mason is a bygone. 

As for due process, methinks it has seen a better time when all it takes to ruin someone's life and career is an accusation.

Of course trials like this clog up the system where guilt is obvious.

NYC terror suspect Sayfullo Saipov pleads not guilty in bike path attack

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[TxHoops]

41 minutes ago, baddog said:

 

The voir dire process aids in reducing prejudices as does change of venue. Maybe I am wrong, but most of today's trials are not about guilt or innocence ( except for your O.J.'s and such). Most court cases are relegated to plea bargains for sentence reductions to speed up the process. Perry Mason is a bygone. 

As for due process, methinks it has seen a better time when all it takes to ruin someone's life and career is an accusation.

Of course trials like this clog up the system where guilt is obvious.

NYC terror suspect Sayfullo Saipov pleads not guilty in bike path attack

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

It's funny you commented baddog because you specifically came to mind when this question was posed.  There may be many juries where you would be struck in voir dire by either kind of strike (for cause or discretionary).  However, you can be on every one of my jury panels (but maybe not the actual jury )   Why?  Because the dangerous ones are the ones who have strong feelings but sit there silently and don't speak up.  With baddog, you not only know he will speak up, but he will do so honestly, regardless of how that may make himself appear to others.  Why?  Because he truly doesn't give a crap about what anyone else thinks of him.  To me, load my panels up with baddogs, and we will be able to tell who can be fair and impartial.

[TxHoops]

45 minutes ago, baddog said:

 

The voir dire process aids in reducing prejudices as does change of venue. Maybe I am wrong, but most of today's trials are not about guilt or innocence ( except for your O.J.'s and such). Most court cases are relegated to plea bargains for sentence reductions to speed up the process. Perry Mason is a bygone. 

As for due process, methinks it has seen a better time when all it takes to ruin someone's life and career is an accusation.

Of course trials like this clog up the system where guilt is obvious.

NYC terror suspect Sayfullo Saipov pleads not guilty in bike path attack

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Oh, and the highlighted portion?  You couldn’t be more spot on.  The presumption of innocence has become a pipe dream in this country (sadly) and there is, in practice, the opposite attitude more often than not.  I have seen innocent people charged many times.  Sometimes convicted.  And even when they are exonerated, often people will just remember they were charged, not the acquittal.  Also, those who claim to be constitutionalists will be the first to assume someone’s guilt based on accusation.  So it’s very refreshing to me that you recognize this glaring problem with due process in this country, even though the problem itself is very depressing.  

[Hagar]

Several great and informative post.  Thanks guys.

[baddog]

On 11/28/2017 at 5:39 PM, TxHoops said:

It's funny you commented baddog because you specifically came to mind when this question was posed.  There may be many juries where you would be struck in voir dire by either kind of strike (for cause or discretionary).  However, you can be on every one of my jury panels (but maybe not the actual jury )   Why?  Because the dangerous ones are the ones who have strong feelings but sit there silently and don't speak up.  With baddog, you not only know he will speak up, but he will do so honestly, regardless of how that may make himself appear to others.  Why?  Because he truly doesn't give a crap about what anyone else thinks of him.  To me, load my panels up with baddogs, and we will be able to tell who can be fair and impartial.

Thanks Hoops. Nice to know I am appreciated. Someone else will have to judge my fairness, but I will always say what I think......gets me in trouble sometimes.

[TxHoops]

2 hours ago, baddog said:

Thanks Hoops. Nice to know I am appreciated. Someone else will have to judge my fairness, but I will always say what I think......gets me in trouble sometimes.

Honest statement I made.  You and I don’t always agree but I always appreciate and respect your candor.  And often get belly laughs reading your posts, sometimes when it probably gets in trouble elsewhere