Something Completely Different

Jury - Good or bad idea?

Started by Trollheart, Apr 10, 2024, 03:56 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Go Down
1 2
#15 Apr 12, 2024, 01:00 PM
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Apr 12, 2024, 10:34 AMMembers of the jury admitted to voting to acquit even though they knew he was guilty.

The defence team could have said anything they wanted, they'd still have let him go.

So they did the right thing. They knew he was guilty(personal feelings) but they voted to acquit based off of evidence provided by the defense team. System is working as intended.

Don't blame the jurors for the prosecution being shit at their job. They are the so called experts.

I was this cool the whole time.
#16 Apr 12, 2024, 01:14 PM
Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 12, 2024, 01:00 PMSo they did the right thing. They knew he was guilty(personal feelings) but they voted to acquit based off of evidence provided by the defense team. System is working as intended.

Don't blame the jurors for the prosecution being shit at their job. They are the so called experts.

Not according to one of the jurors themselves, who admitted that 90% of them, including herself, acquitted regardless of the evidence.

It was nothing to do with the efforts of the prosecution. They could have had HD footage of the murders and he'd have got off.



Only God knows.
#17 Apr 12, 2024, 02:21 PM
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Apr 12, 2024, 01:14 PMNot according to one of the jurors themselves, who admitted that 90% of them, including herself, acquitted regardless of the evidence.

It was nothing to do with the efforts of the prosecution. They could have had HD footage of the murders and he'd have got off.



Idk if I believe that testimony after the fact. I watch a shit load of court tv and the jury is fine majority of the time. Her claims sound like it's in hindsight because of her personal feelings.

I was this cool the whole time.
#18 Apr 12, 2024, 03:03 PM Last Edit: Apr 12, 2024, 03:07 PM by SGR
Quote from: Trollheart on Apr 11, 2024, 08:25 PMAnd all this shit about leave emotion out of it? That's not possible. People are going to be fired up by photographs, descriptions, what happened in the case... nobody goes in there with a totally unbiased, pragmatic and logical view, weaken my eyesight and thin my hair if ... oh. Well, my point still stands.

Probably, in the future, we'll have artificial intelligence doing the job. Don't know if we'll need 12 different AIs, but the AI used would need to be open source to provide a level of transparency that the rulings are not biased. There should be audits on the AIs used at regular intervals to ensure they meet some kind of established standard for the purpose of jury trials. Prime the public for the idea of AI-meted justice with a movie about it (or maybe...a Black Mirror episode) where a human jury botches a trial and then AI jurors are introduced in a retrial that reach the 'correct' verdict, based on all available evidence. As humans see AI taking over more and more important jobs and functions, I think they'd accept AI jurors, if they were led to believe that the verdict of trials would be 'more accurate, fair and just' (even if they truly weren't).

Only a matter of time. Here's an article discussing how AI will shape and influence jury trials in the near future, but it holds the position that they shouldn't replace human jurors. If AIs become persuasive enough, and their influence in jury trials broad enough, it won't even really matter if the jurors are human or not.

https://www.theclm.org/Magazine/articles/ai-and-the-future-of-jury-trials/2731

#19 Apr 12, 2024, 08:23 PM
Also even though OJ was acquitted on criminal charges he was found guilty in the civil trial and died still oweing 30 million to the family. He also did time in prison for something that he shouldn't have had prison time for just because the jury/judge felt like he got off from his first criminal trial with zero time and needed to make up for it.

I was this cool the whole time.
#20 Apr 12, 2024, 08:25 PM
Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 12, 2024, 08:23 PMAlso even though OJ was acquitted on criminal charges he was found guilty in the civil trial and died still oweing 30 million to the family. He also did time in prison for something that he shouldn't have had prison time for just because the jury/judge felt like he got off from his first criminal trial with zero time and needed to make up for it.

Compensation he didn't pay :laughing:

Second bit just strengthens my argument. Juries are shit.

Only God knows.
#21 Apr 13, 2024, 08:35 AM
Quote from: jimmy jazz on Apr 12, 2024, 08:25 PMCompensation he didn't pay :laughing:

Second bit just strengthens my argument. Juries are shit.

In OJ's case it really was the prosecution/cop's that screwed up though. The cops were being racist and trying to plant evidence instead of just using what they had access to. The reason he was found guilty in the second trial was because of evidence not presented during the criminal trial that would have sealed the deal more than the glove situation they went with. It's still not the jury's fault that the cops didn't do their job right.

I was this cool the whole time.
#22 Apr 13, 2024, 01:33 PM
Quote from: DJChameleon on Apr 13, 2024, 08:35 AMIn OJ's case it really was the prosecution/cop's that screwed up though. The cops were being racist and trying to plant evidence instead of just using what they had access to. The reason he was found guilty in the second trial was because of evidence not presented during the criminal trial that would have sealed the deal more than the glove situation they went with. It's still not the jury's fault that the cops didn't do their job right.

They did fuck up but so did the jury. They admitted that they had other reasons for acquiting, so it really doesn't matter. And whether you believe it or not, the fact it's even a question is still a problem.

Only God knows.
Go Up
1 2