Unanimous Jury Verdicts Required For Serious Criminal Convictions -- Supreme Court Rules

[Gameface]

We’re not asking a jury to interpret law. It’s fairly cut and dry. Reasonable doubt and all that. We’re asking them to listen to all the evidence and make an informed decision based off of it.

Yeah, they get very specific instructions. They basically just need to agree to a series of essentially yes or no questions. If they are not sure about something they can ask the judge for more specific instructions or explanations. If they need to review specific testimony or evidence they can ask for it.

It's a way of telling citizens that we are all part of this system. Criminal justice is not something that is imposed on us by our masters but something we do as a society.

 

[JimLes]

I like the jury system for many reasons one of which is the connections it makes between citizens and the law.

I guess that's my main issue here. I hate things that allow laypeople to participate in what should be experts' work. Like referendums.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

My god, how anyone would feel better having members of law enforcement deciding your fate. It’s like a ref missing an obvious pass interference call in a football game. The coach throws the red flag because it’s obviously wrong, and the refs upstairs or whatever still end up waving it off. Give me my moronic peers every day of the week, idiots.

 

[Gameface]

I guess that's my main issue here. I hate things that allow laypeople to participate in what should be experts' work. Like referendums.

If it weren't for referendums Utah would never have been able to pass medical MJ or push our state to accept expanded Medicare.

 

[Ron Mexico]

There are also lots of corrupt NBA referees out there, but I don't think picking 12 people and letting them decide if Harden was fouled would make things any better.

I disagree, if we are using the same equivalent. If you gave 12 random people the rule to read and the video to review, and time to discuss it with each other and ask questions to the experts. I think they would do a better job more often than 1 ref.

 

[JimLes]

I disagree, if we are using the same equivalent. If you gave 12 random people the rule to read and the video to review, and time to discuss it with each other and ask questions to the experts. I think they would do a better job more often than 1 ref.

The ref would also do a better job if they could review things, so that's an unfair proposition.

Unless you're not talking about them doing it after the fact.

 

[JimLes]

If it weren't for referendums Utah would never have been able to pass medical MJ or push our state to accept expanded Medicare.

I'd much rather see my fellow citizens elect better leaders who would do all those things without referendums. I'm a much bigger fan of representative democracy than a direct one.

 

[Ron Mexico]

The ref would also do a better job if they could review things, so that's an unfair proposition.

He can do the same. I would still take the 12 random people. It takes 10 seconds to learn the rule in question.

 

[JimLes]

He can do the same. I would still take the 12 random people. It takes 10 seconds to learn the rule in question.

If you haven't played or watched basketball, it would take ages to learn all the context for even a single rule.

And maybe I'm the moron here, but having watched basketball for hundreds of hours a year for the past two and a half decades, I still miss so much stuff live that refs catch. Sure, I sometimes see things the refs have missed, but the ratio is very lopsided. I might rail against the refs after almost every Jazz loss(and some wins), but I can acknowledge that there's a big amount of training that goes into being a ref(training your eyes mostly) that I could not just make up in a few days or weeks.

 

[One Brow]

Having judges decide because they actually have legal training. It's like how surgeons operate because they have training.

Judges can overrule juries when they mistakenly find a person guilty, in the judge's opinion. I believe in many places judge's also perform the sentencing. It's not like they are left out of the loop.

 

[JimLes]

Judges can overrule juries when they mistakenly find a person guilty, in the judge's opinion.

So why not let the judge rule in the first place? My mum let my sister pick the colour for the new paint in our house when she was 16, and then repainted it afterwards because lime green was nauseating. Why let her pick to begin with then?

 

[Ron Mexico]

If you haven't played or watched basketball, it would take ages to learn all the context for even a single rule.

And maybe I'm the moron here, but having watched basketball for hundreds of hours a year for the past two and a half decades, I still miss so much stuff live that refs catch. Sure, I sometimes see things the refs have missed, but the ratio is very lopsided. I might rail against the refs after almost every Jazz loss(and some wins), but I can acknowledge that there's a big amount of training that goes into being a ref(training your eyes mostly) that I could not just make up in a few days or weeks.

No, it would be very easy to explain to anyone a specific rule and incident. No, I dont think you could take 12 random people and make them live refs but that is a whole different situation. Also everyone has seen basketball and knows what it is in the USA and pretty much every country.

Experts are great but they are not the ultimate infallible answer. Keeping people involved in the process helps prevent corruption as well.

Also its impossible to get a judge that isnt biased. Its also in human nature to abuse being in power.

Also I want to be proven guilty without a doubt. I want that to be without a doubt of multiple people. Not 1 person who sees the bad criminals of the worlds each and every day and is jaded by that.