• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Zimmerman to get "Stand Your Ground" hearing.....developing

hawke812 said:
Those numbers do not support the claim "juries like to convict people". There is nothing in the pdf file that even points to that conclusion. Where are you people getting this from:confused:
Click to expand...
Like I already said: ".. since you seem unable to make the correlation, ...".
 
joko104 said:
Innocent Man Released from Prison After 22 Years - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

DNA clears Texas man who spent 30 years in prison - NYPOST.com
Click to expand...

Neither of those were the result of a "runaway jury" or were a case of "juries like to convict people". In both cases there were "Eyewitness Misidentification". A police officer testified he saw Anthony Capozzi at the scene. In the other the victim picked out Cornelius Dupree JR. from a lineup. There were other problems in both cases (like DNA evidence), none of which points to a "runaway jury" or "juries like to convict people", which I was referring to when you quoted me.

Once again, can you provide some examples of "juries like to convict people"?
 
Excon said:
Like I already said: ".. since you seem unable to make the correlation, ...".
Click to expand...

Which is pure conjecture. Nothing you provided supports "juries like to convict people". Look at the summary findings. Nothing comes close to "juries like to convict people" or "runaway jury". What correlation:confused:


***The overwhelming majority (90 to 95
percent) of cases result in plea
bargaining.
***Prosecutorial discretion in plea
bargaining is known to cause
discrepancies in sentencing outcomes.
***Those who go to trial rather than accept
a plea are more likely to receive harsher
sentences

***Limiting prosecutorial discretion by
creating policy and legislation that calls
for firmer guidelines when choosing
sanctions for specific crimes; and
***Involving both judges and defense
attorneys in the charge bargaining
process so that there is more of a balance
of power among all legal participants
(Bibas, 2004).

edit: ^^from the pdf you provided
 
It is a mistake to conclude that because a person pleas out that the person committed the offense. For many, if not most, cases if the Defedant is too poor to bond out, he/she will spend more time in jail awaiting a trial even if found not guilty than pleaing out. For many of those not doing so means they will literally lose every little bit in life they have - car, job, eviction and property set out street for thieves etc.
 
joko104 said:
It is a mistake to conclude that because a person pleas out that the person committed the offense. For many, if not most, cases if the Defedant is too poor to bond out, he/she will spend more time in jail awaiting a trial even if found not guilty than pleaing out. For many of those not doing so means they will literally lose every little bit in life they have - car, job, eviction and property set out street for thieves etc.
Click to expand...

They also make the mistake of waiving their right to a speedy trial. Most lawyers want them to do that so they scedule their case load more easily. Never waive that right without very good and compleling reasons, scheduling aint one of them. It just like talking to the police. Dont. Ever. What you say can and WILL be used against you. Police do not talk to people unless they think that person has done something. If the police ask you a question, dont answer or refer them to an attorney.
 
joko104 said:
It is a mistake to conclude that because a person pleas out that the person committed the offense. For many, if not most, cases if the Defedant is too poor to bond out, he/she will spend more time in jail awaiting a trial even if found not guilty than pleaing out. For many of those not doing so means they will literally lose every little bit in life they have - car, job, eviction and property set out street for thieves etc.
Click to expand...

This is one huge circle-jerk:lol:

You said: "There is no reason to explain what is known and the examples of people subsequently released after being convicting on the weakest of evidence is so common it isn't even newsworthy anymore."

In response to my:

Can you provide some examples of "juries like to convict people"?

What is the reasoning behind "this case could involve a runaway jury"?

And gave ZERO examples of "runaway jury" or "juries like to convict people":lol:

And now you go on to cases where it does not even go to a jury:lamo
 
hawke812 said:
This is one huge circle-jerk:lol:

You said: "There is no reason to explain what is known and the examples of people subsequently released after being convicting on the weakest of evidence is so common it isn't even newsworthy anymore."

In response to my:

Can you provide some examples of "juries like to convict people"?

What is the reasoning behind "this case could involve a runaway jury"?

And gave ZERO examples of "runaway jury" or "juries like to convict people":lol:

And now you go on to cases where it does not even go to a jury:lamo
Click to expand...

You left out the relevant message you posted. Once again, you are hyterically laughing at your own messages.
 
joko104 said:
You left out the relevant message you posted. Once again, you are hyterically laughing at your own messages.
Click to expand...

The relevant message being...? Once again you post something without any evidence to back up your claim:lol:
 
hawke812 said:
Which is pure conjecture. Nothing you provided supports "juries like to convict people". Look at the summary findings. Nothing comes close to "juries like to convict people" or "runaway jury". What correlation:confused:
Click to expand...
:slapme:
Stop focusing on the first part, that was provided for information purposes only.
Focus on the second part and what was quoted from it.

Excon said:
Code: 
[INDENT][s][COLOR="#000000"][FONT=Times New Roman][B]Plea and Charge Bargaining[/B]
[INDENT][INDENT]Research Summary
[INDENT][...] According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2005), in 2003 there were 75,573 cases disposed of in federal district court
by trial or plea. Of these, about 95 percent were disposed of by a guilty plea (Pastore and Maguire, 2003).
While there are no exact estimates of the proportion of cases that are resolved through plea bargaining,
scholars estimate that about 90 to 95 percent of both federal and state court cases are resolved through this process
(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005; Flanagan and Maguire, 1990). [...][/INDENT][/INDENT]
[SIZE=1][url=https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf]Plea and Charge Bargaining; Research Summary[/url][/SIZE][/INDENT][/s]


[SIZE=3][B]To Plead or Not to Plead?[/B]
[INDENT][INDENT]Reviewing a Decade of Criminal Antitrust Trials F. Joseph Warin, David P. Burns, and John W.F. Chesley
[INDENT]Over the last ten years, the success rate achieved by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in convicting
criminal defendants at trial is [U]staggeringly high[/U]—[COLOR="#332299"][B]over 77 percent of those who elect to go to trial are
found guilty.[/B][/COLOR]¹  In fraud trials, that number is even higher—nearly 80 percent. [...][/INDENT][/INDENT][SIZE=1]
[url=http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/Documents/Warin-Burns-Chesley-ToPleadorNottoPlead.pdf]To Plead or Not to Plead?[/url][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/INDENT][/SIZE][/INDENT]

Did you get that?
Staggeringly high!
There is no distinction made between a bench trial and that before a jury, but I doubt there would be any significant deviation.
Seems to me, based on that stat alone, that juries do like convicting.



And in Death Penalty cases a jury is more likely to convict.

Empirical evidence adduced in Lockhart also has shown that death-qualified juries are more likely than other jurors to convict a defendant. ³
3. Samuel Gross (1996), The Risks of Death: Why Erroneous Convictions Are Common in Capital Cases, 44 Buffalo L. Rev. 469, 494.​
Death-qualified jury - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
Click to expand...


This information does indicate that juries do like to convict.
I am sorry you do not understand the correlation.
 
Excon said:
:slapme:
Stop focusing on the first part, that was provided for information purposes only.
Focus on the second part and what was quoted from it.




This information does indicate that juries do like to convict.
I am sorry you do not understand the correlation.
Click to expand...



Jury under J Nelson let off a killer.

George Zimmerman judge stand your ground: George Zimmerman judge rejected 'stand your ground' claim in another murder case in April - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com



"On April 27, at Jones' "stand your ground" hearing, defense attorney Dan Geraghty put the defendant and two witnesses who were in a nearby apartment on the stand.

In her five-page order, Nelson made it clear that she did not believe the defendant and at least one of the other witnesses. Boone's actions, she wrote, would not have caused a reasonable person to believe that he was about to commit a forcible felony."

"It's not surprising, Geraghty said, that the jury came to a different conclusion than the judge.

That's because a jury is required to measure the evidence one way: Has the state proved the defendant's guilt beyond every reasonable doubt?

And the judge must rely on a different standard: By a preponderance of evidence, has the defendant proved that he had a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury?"





\\
 
Last edited:
Gladiator said:
Jury under J Nelson let off a killer.

George Zimmerman judge stand your ground: George Zimmerman judge rejected 'stand your ground' claim in another murder case in April - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com



"On April 27, at Jones' "stand your ground" hearing, defense attorney Dan Geraghty put the defendant and two witnesses who were in a nearby apartment on the stand.

In her five-page order, Nelson made it clear that she did not believe the defendant and at least one of the other witnesses. Boone's actions, she wrote, would not have caused a reasonable person to believe that he was about to commit a forcible felony."

"It's not surprising, Geraghty said, that the jury came to a different conclusion than the judge.

That's because a jury is required to measure the evidence one way: Has the state proved the defendant's guilt beyond every reasonable doubt?

And the judge must rely on a different standard: By a preponderance of evidence, has the defendant proved that he had a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury?"





\\
Click to expand...

Interesting case, thanks for posting.
 
hawke812 said:
#1. Cop
#2. Out

I Googled "juries like to convict people", and found a few juries REFUSE to convict marijuana offenders. These are examples that counter the claim of "juries like to convict people".

Google

And Runaway Jury the movie?

Runaway Jury (2003) - IMDb

Or the book?

John Grisham » The Runaway Jury

All you have to back up your arguments are a book and a movie:lol:

Okay:2rofll:
Click to expand...

Yeah? Just wait until there is a thread on lynching and you will be telling a different story, you yankee hypocrite. I'm sorry you have no education.
 
Gladiator said:
Jury under J Nelson let off a killer.

George Zimmerman judge stand your ground: George Zimmerman judge rejected 'stand your ground' claim in another murder case in April - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com



"On April 27, at Jones' "stand your ground" hearing, defense attorney Dan Geraghty put the defendant and two witnesses who were in a nearby apartment on the stand.

In her five-page order, Nelson made it clear that she did not believe the defendant and at least one of the other witnesses. Boone's actions, she wrote, would not have caused a reasonable person to believe that he was about to commit a forcible felony."

"It's not surprising, Geraghty said, that the jury came to a different conclusion than the judge.

That's because a jury is required to measure the evidence one way: Has the state proved the defendant's guilt beyond every reasonable doubt?

And the judge must rely on a different standard: By a preponderance of evidence, has the defendant proved that he had a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury?"
Click to expand...
Ah .........?

Helloooooooooooooooooooo?

What does this have to do with what you quoted?
 
Gladiator said:
Check the OP
Click to expand...
I did't ask what, or if, it had anything to do with the OP.
I asked what it had to do with what you quoted.
Duh!

You quoted me and then replied with the above non-sense.
It had absolutely nothing to do with what you quoted of me.
 
Maenad said:
Yeah? Just wait until there is a thread on lynching and you will be telling a different story, you yankee hypocrite. I'm sorry you have no education.
Click to expand...

Do you have proof I have no education? Or is that just a personal attack?

What is a Yankee hypocrite? I am a Dodger fan. What does that have to do with the Yankee's?
 
A jury would not decide a SYG hearing, but could consider the SYG law in making their verdict.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom