ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
Not a fan but is it even practical. How many people qualify and would the hours they're willing to commit come close to meeting the demand?
There’s no practicality. The whole point of a jury of your peers is to remove as much implied bias as humanly possible and have people who can immediately detach once the jury renders its decision
Klansky isn’t the first person to propose that stupidity but once jurors are professional there’s a bias in it. What metrics do you have to keep your job? What’s your oversight that you answer to? Plenty of other questions that make this notion disqualifying
To clarify a few things I wrote
Almost all people think that Trump was guilty.
The main controversy is whether he should have been FOUND guilty.
Some of those who think he should not have been found guilty actually think that he should have been found guilty, given the judge's jury instructions. They think if the judge's instructions were not flawed, some of the jurors would have switched their votes.
Most of the people who have an opinion on whether he should have been found guilty don't know enough to have their opinion taken seriously, both because they don't have enough information or intelligence to come to a correct conclusion, and because they are influenced by their desire to see Trump win or lose.
As to my post about Matusow and James Woods:
Their statement was made together while addressing several people.
They made their statement before the jury verdict and were talking not about the verdict but rather about all the indictments.
There is a small chance I misheard and that they were in fact quoting what they thought other people were thinking.
I don't think I misheard because I believe I also heard them saying negative things about Trump (narcissist, dumb, etc) that originally had them staying home (not voting for Biden). But again, there is a small chance they were quoting others.
If I misheard, I will know soon enough since I will almost surely have the chance to ask them myself during the wsop.
There’s no practicality. The whole point of a jury of your peers is to remove as much implied bias as humanly possible and have people who can immediately detach once the jury renders its decision
Klansky isn’t the first person to propose that stupidity but once jurors are professional there’s a bias in it. What metrics do you have to keep your job? What’s your oversight that you answer to? Plenty of other questions that make this notion dis
By your logic, we can't have professional judges either.
Most of the people who have an opinion on whether he should have been found guilty don't know enough to have their opinion taken seriously, both because they don't have enough information or intelligence to come to a correct conclusion, and because they are influenced by their desire to see Trump win or lose.
You are correct. What is ironic is your failure to realise that you yourself are in the group of "most people" as you have described it.
I don't see how any of the issues you have raised with regards to professional jurors don't also apply to judges. Also, judges are currently allowed to be finders of fact in cases where the defendant opts for a bench trial, and are finders of fact in civil cases in most jurisdictions outside the US.
Not a fan but is it even practical. How many people qualify and would the hours they're willing to commit come close to meeting the demand?
It's probably impractical. But let me ask you this:
Since clearcut cases are usually plea bargained it is usually the close ones that go to trial. Of those close ones what percent had a good chance of being decided the other way if the judge was different? What about those verdicts that was won by the obviously better lawyer? How many would have gone the other way if the skills of the lawyers were reversed? Since I am sure that you would answer "plenty" I ask how can so much luck be acceptable to you?
I don't see how any of the issues you have raised with regards to professional jurors don't also apply to judges. Also, judges are currently allowed to be finders of fact in cases where the defendant opts for a bench trial, and are finders of fact in civil cases in most jurisdictions outside the US.
If a juror is showing up who has a guilty rate or acquittal rate of like 80% over enough of a sample, has a tendency towards X if the defendant is Y, that’s far more ****ed to the jury system then one idiot who had no idea what they’re doing but both the defense and prosecution are down for them to be there
If a juror is showing up who has a guilty rate or acquittal rate of like 80% over enough of a sample, has a tendency towards X if the defendant is Y, that’s far more ****ed to the jury system then one idiot who had no idea what they’re doing but both the defense and prosecution are down for them to be there
You say "showing up". I'm not sure you understand the proposal. "Juror" would be a full time job. It would require training and qualifications. There would be performance reviews as with any other job. Yes, some people are bad at their jobs. This happens in every field of endeavour, and there are processes in place to handle it.
You say "showing up". I'm not sure you understand the proposal. "Juror" would be a full time job. It would require training. There would be performance reviews as with any other job. Yes, some people are bad at their jobs. This happens in every field of endeavour.
Sure but who sets that standard? We already have found ourselves in a situation where every judge appointed or elected is hyper partisan, is that going to be the same mold you select your jurors?
Not to mention if you know the law enough ti be a professional juror you’re not going to be interested in having a juror be your profession
holy **** david. you make yourself look so ****ing dumb every time you post. it's been going on for years now. just ****ing stop man
Sure but who sets that standard? We already have found ourselves in a situation where every judge appointed or elected is hyper partisan, is that going to be the same mold you select your jurors?
Not to mention if you know the law enough ti be a professional juror you’re not going to be interested in having a juror be your profession
Your argument seems to be that the whole system is broken. I am not going to argue that with you. I don't see anything in your argument that applies to juries that doesn't apply to judges. If you want to argue that the process for selecting judges is broken, I'll leave that to someone else.
As to who would want to do it, personally, I don't know why anyone would want to be an accountant or an auditor, but there are plenty of accountants and auditors. It's not for me to comment on why someone chooses the job they do, but I doubt there would be a shortage of applicants.
Honestly, I'm quite shocked that we don't do this already. Juries wield the power to make life changing decisions for defendants, and we entrust this power to a dozen unpaid dumbasses too lazy or apathetic to get out of jury duty. This system might have made sense when it was enacted, so that peasants would be tried by peasants and aristocrats by aristocrats, but it makes little sense in today's world.
To clarify a few things I wrote
Almost all people think that Trump was guilty.
The main controversy is whether he should have been FOUND guilty.
Some of those who think he should not have been found guilty actually think that he should have been found guilty, given the judge's jury instructions. They think if the judge's instructions were not flawed, some of the jurors would have switched their votes.
Most of the people who have an opinion on w
I'm not sure that I follow. But why would this hypothetical jury in another state find Trump not guilty?
You mentioned a 12-0 result, so I don’t think the answer is that some MAGAs would sneak on the jury in a more RW state and do jury nullification resulting in a mistrial.
I'm sure that in almost any case that there are juries that woud difer in their findings by chance, even within a state.
I've read authors like Daniel Kahneman showing JUDGES rule differently based on things like if it is before or after lunch or football results.
Chance permeates the system. Some people are barely DUI once and get caught. Some drive drunk every day for years and don't.
That's just how the world works, as serious gamblers should know better than most. Yes we can improve it, but obviously some juries will go your way and others won't.
There’s no practicality. The whole point of a jury of your peers is to remove as much implied bias as humanly possible and have people who can immediately detach once the jury renders its decision
Klansky isn’t the first person to propose that stupidity but once jurors are professional there’s a bias in it. What metrics do you have to keep your job? What’s your oversight that you answer to? Plenty of other questions that make this notion dis
I agree it's a very bad idea although nowhere near as bad as the idea of disenfranching people because they can't pass a test.
Chance permeates the system. Some people are barely DUI once and get caught. Some drive drunk every day for years and don't.
That's just how the world works, as serious gamblers should know better than most. Yes we can improve it, but obviously some juries will go your way and others won't.
Chance doesn't mean random expectation though right? Have I said this right?
It's probably impractical. But let me ask you this:
Since clearcut cases are usually plea bargained it is usually the close ones that go to trial. Of those close ones what percent had a good chance of being decided the other way if the judge was different? What about those verdicts that was won by the obviously better lawyer? How many would have gone the other way if the skills of the lawyers were reversed? Since I am sure that you would ans
So much of the legal system is unaccetable to me. Especially in the usa. Many radical changes are required
but juries may be like democracy in being awful but not as bad as the alternatives
