Post #65,027
11/25/02 10:22:09 PM
|
Talk about not understanding the POINT of a Jury
[link|http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/25/filming.deliberations.ap/index.html|http://www.cnn.com/2...ons.ap/index.html]
Excuse me, but how can the jury only be accountable to themselves and also be filmed???
One suspects a judge of either abysmal ignorance or really not caring about the checks and balances in the Constitution.
Ben
"Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly."
- [link|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html|Walter Mead]
|
Post #65,031
11/25/02 10:28:55 PM
|
for a death penalty case? Tacky!
John. Busy lad.
|
Post #65,037
11/25/02 10:52:17 PM
|
I do beleive that the judge is correct
The constitution has engrained a trial by a jury of your peers. It does not say that Jury deliberations must be secret. On the other hand the jury could require the judge to turn off the cameras as they alone dictate the nature of the deliberations as precedent would go to grand jury law. The jury rules on the dictats of its own existence. If the judge refused the request either a mistrial or a certain overturning on appeal of any conviction would ensue,
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
GRAYBOAR-Strangleur Extraodinaire
"Have Thumbs Will Travel"
Customised Asphyxiations
No Gullet Too Big, No Weasand Too small
My Motto Satisfaction Garoteed, or the Chokes on Me!
Eric Flint
|
Post #65,065
11/26/02 1:12:01 AM
|
Not under common law
Common law is the often unwritten set of interpretations for what things mean, whether or not that is defined in any statute.
The Constitution and legal system within the US may only really be understood from within the framework of common law within which they appear. If this seems strange, recall that legislated laws are secondary to the Constitution. The Constitution is a set of symbols on paper which may only be understood with reference to an existing language and interpretation. Common law is what we call that language and interpretation.
For instance we see a word like "jury" in the Constitution. That word could mean anything. Someone might think that it meant "Judy". Someone else might think it a kind of fruit. With the evolution of language, in 200 years it might actually be a kind of fruit. Stranger things have happened.
But if the Constitution is to have a solid meaning, then "jury" must have a fixed meaning. And what fixes the meaning of the word "jury" is its accepted common law background that tells us what Jefferson et al meant by a jury. And this common law background says that it is not just a collection of people. It is a collection of people with specific rights, privileges, and immunities. Of primary importance among them is that a jury answers to nobody for how they make their decision. This right gives rise to jury nullification where the jury makes a decision that is clearly wrong under the law - because they disagree with the law. They have the right to do that. And this right is not incidental - it is central to why various Constitutions consider trial by jury an important right.
Like many of the rights in the Constitution, it has proven inconvenient over the years. So the right has been watered down farther and farther. But if we ever lose the principle that juries are not subject to outside monitoring and surveillance, then the right to trial by jury utterly fails of the purpose that it is intended to serve - to be a check against a corrupt government and a complacent judiciary enforcing bad laws. I do not want the media to place a camera in there because what they do today the government may do tomorrow, and I don't want to be staring at that camera some day debating whether I dare explain to my fellow jurors the rights that they theoretically are supposed to have.
For more on this I suggest going to [link|http://www.erowid.org/freedom/jury_nullification/jury_nullification.shtml|http://www.erowid.or...llification.shtml] with a good starting place being [link|http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/BillInfo/FIJA.History.html|http://quasar.as.ute...FIJA.History.html].
Cheers,
Ben
"Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly."
- [link|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html|Walter Mead]
|
Post #65,076
11/26/02 2:05:47 AM
|
Common law means something far sillier
It means the way things were done in English courts in the 1700's.
Really.
I'm not kidding.
And as far as I can see, there really aren't any better ways to do it. The best means of obtaining justice that have ever been developed are the fossilized barbaric practices of country judges in the homeland of an evil empire during a time of upheaval.
As Sister State (from the Church and State class I took in college, presented by a pair of nuns - Sister Church and Sister State - whose real names I cannot recall) put it, any system that makes sense is probably heretical, and almost certainly very bad for the people involved.
----
Whatever
|
Post #65,098
11/26/02 7:29:10 AM
|
My understanding is that it is more flexible than that
More precisely that it is still being laid down whenever a higher court creates precedents indicating which legal theories are and are not to be interpreted as having force.
Granted most of the significant features were accreted by the late 1700's, and for the interpretation of the Constitution that part of it has partciular relevance since it frames the context in which the Constitution was written.
I will have to track down a lawyer to discuss this with. Possibly at Thanksgiving because then I can get 2 of them to argue with each other... :-)
Cheers,
Ben
"Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly."
- [link|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html|Walter Mead]
|
Post #65,133
11/26/02 10:44:15 AM
|
common law was the body of English law
at the time the constitutiion was written. American law is precedent based. If there is a prior case that was decided one way future cases will be decided the same way except when a higher court overturns the precedents based on constitutional law. As I explained in my prior post the Jury holds sway both constitutionally and under common law so if "the jury" oblects to the camera, out it goes. If they do not object, then it can stay. That would be the basis of the argument over thanksgiving dinner IMHO
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
GRAYBOAR-Strangleur Extraodinaire
"Have Thumbs Will Travel"
Customised Asphyxiations
No Gullet Too Big, No Weasand Too small
My Motto Satisfaction Garoteed, or the Chokes on Me!
Eric Flint
|
Post #65,246
11/26/02 7:38:35 PM
|
We-ell...
Considering that there will be two lawyers at Thanksgiving dinner, I think I will be doing more listening than arguing. :-)
Cheers,
Ben
"Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly."
- [link|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html|Walter Mead]
|
Post #65,272
11/26/02 9:04:53 PM
|
lawyers are fun to argue with
as long as you know a particular subject as well as they do. I used to do legal research before westlaw put me out of business so in some arcane areas Im not too bad. In others I do a sgt schultz. Trick is to know which is which,
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
GRAYBOAR-Strangleur Extraodinaire
"Have Thumbs Will Travel"
Customised Asphyxiations
No Gullet Too Big, No Weasand Too small
My Motto Satisfaction Garoteed, or the Chokes on Me!
Eric Flint
|
Post #65,279
11/26/02 9:25:39 PM
|
Uh huh.
-drl
|
Post #65,280
11/26/02 9:27:41 PM
|
This is true but...
If you have two it is more fun to try to get them to argue with each other. :-)
Cheers,
Ben
"Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly."
- [link|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html|Walter Mead]
|
Post #65,285
11/26/02 10:06:05 PM
|
that is even more fun :-)
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
GRAYBOAR-Strangleur Extraodinaire
"Have Thumbs Will Travel"
Customised Asphyxiations
No Gullet Too Big, No Weasand Too small
My Motto Satisfaction Garoteed, or the Chokes on Me!
Eric Flint
|
Post #65,119
11/26/02 9:27:08 AM
|
Regardless of whether or not it was correct
It's a stupid thing to do.
Filming deliberations will allow, upon a guilty verdict, for an appeal based solely on influence of the jury - that they were being filmed.
And - it's likely that the entire case would have to be retried in that event.
|
Post #65,046
11/25/02 11:29:04 PM
|
I see a very mixed-bag.
"I think for once the whole world is going to watch what goes on in a Texas courtroom, where the state seeks the death penalty quite frequently," Rodriguez said.
But Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal said, "We don't try these cases for the spectacle or for people's entertainment. I think that filming jurors is really a bad idea because it puts pressure on the jurors to vote in a way the public might expect." My belief is that most ALL of us are as ignorant as we are inexperienced in.. just what / how a 'jury' comes to a decision. Any who know: learned from the experience. Only. In an environment of increasing Government usurpation of Constitutional rights of all citizens, I will guarantee/bet anyone that the concept, jury nullification shall ascend in attention, in contemplation and soon: in Action. It's our Last Resort short of active and violent in-streets revolution. No bets on this last - not many with guts - in sight, yet. Frontline is the closest we get in 2002 to an Ed Murrow (see "Harvest of Shame" - perhaps the first Real Tee Vee documentary on actual American matters of great concern.) See also - his broadcast which put the final stake in the heart of McCarthy, if not (even yet) his -ism. PBS, despite creeping encroachment of Corp-ad 'sponsoring' - is our last nonCorporate public voice of much consequence (KPFA-FM in Berkeley == Pacifica Foundation is one of a handful of small actually independent broadcasters.. besides dozens? of micro-power extra-legal operators) I think the need for elucidation, education must be weighed carefully against the novelty, and the issues of 'on camera' performance? of these folks who, after all - will be deciding on YAN Texas Death.. of an infinite series. Never mind it be about a 17 yo again, too. Ashton
|
