• 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.

Florida Statute 913.10 Will Always Favor the Prosecution Over the Defense

JackFrost

Banned
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
3,471
Reaction score
513
Location
El Monte, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin in one of 48 other states, I would agree he would most likely be found not guilty. Unfortunately for Zimmerman, he chose to live in Florida:lol:

For those of you clinging to the notion of "presumption of innocence", Florida only see's it as a minor inconvenience. They have done just about everything they can to **** it up:lol:

With all the cards stacked against Zimmerman, I highly doubt he will be cleared/found not guilty. This is just one more piece that reinforces my prediction of George Zimmerman being convicted of murder 2.

Twelve persons shall constitute a jury to try all capital cases, and six persons shall constitute a jury to try all other criminal cases.

"Twice as easy, half the work to convict" ~ Florida Prosecutors

It is much easier for 6 jurors to convict.

For capital crimes it is even worse! Not only is this a problem of 6 jurors versus 12 jurors at trial, but of 6 versus 24; 12 grand jurors and 12 trial jurors who have seen the State’s evidence, 24 citizens who have reviewed the case in other states vs. only 6 in Florida. The Grand Jury requirement has been replaced by a signature from the State Attorney...yeah
 
Who is to say 12 isn't too many and that it is too easy for people to get acquitted with a 12 person jury.
 
Exactly. Why is twelve some kind of magic number?

The judge and 12 person jury is based on Jesus and the 12 apostles, very scientific
 
It is much easier for 6 jurors to acquit?
 
It is much easier for 6 jurors to acquit?

No, easier to convict.

There is a reason why Florida leads the nation in wrongful convictions:

On the question whether jurors in the minority were less able to resist
conformity pressure from the majority in six-person juries than in twelveperson juries, the Court cited several empirical studies. Relying on these
studies, the Court concluded that the critical factor was the ratio of
majority to minority members, which would not change merely by cutting
the jury size in half:
“Studies of the operative factors contributing to small
group deliberation and decisionmaking suggest that jurors in the minority
on the first ballot are likely to be influenced by the proportional size of thmajority aligned against them.” Thus, a minority faction in a jury divided 10–2 would be no better able to withstand majority influence than
the minority faction in a jury divided 5–1. The critical factor, said the
Court, was the proportion, not the absolute number, of jurors in the
factions.
But the empirical studies found exactly the opposite. To quote
from those sources on the very pages to which the Court cited
• [F]or one or two jurors to hold out to the end, it would
appear necessary that they had companionship at the
beginning of the deliberations. The juror psychology
recalls a famous series of experiments by the psychologist
Asch and others which showed that in an ambiguous
situation a member of a group will doubt and finally
disbelieve his own correct observation if all other
members of the group claim that he must have been
mistaken. To maintain his original position, not only
before others but even before himself, it is necessary for
him to have at least one ally.
104
• The results clearly demonstrate that a disturbance of the
unanimity of the majority markedly increased the
independence of the critical subjects. . . . Indeed, we have
been able to show that a unanimous majority of 3 is, under
the given conditions, far more effective than a majority of
8 containing 1 dissenter.
105
• Participants in a discussion are often influenced to change
their opinion simply by the knowledge that an
overwhelming majority disagrees with them. Consistent
disapproval by the majority can shake a small minority’s
faith even in judgments it believes to be right. Such
pressures are most effective against a single dissenter and
fall off rapidly in efficacy as the size of the dissenting
coalition increases. A single ally gives mosost dissenters the
courage to voice their true convictions.


http://www.floridalawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Saks-BK.pdf
 
Well, I think I'm for self defense cases requiring 12 jurors, if there is overwhelming evidence that it is easier to convict in such cases with 6. Presuming that standard criminal convictions and self defense convictions correlate in regard to data indications is not a given.

While the lean may be to convict in the case of common criminal court, the lean may go the other way in cases of self defense and I would like to see data specific to such circumstance.
 
Well, I think I'm for self defense cases requiring 12 jurors, if there is overwhelming evidence that it is easier to convict in such cases with 6. Presuming that standard criminal convictions and self defense convictions correlate in regard to data indications is not a given.

While the lean may be to convict in the case of common criminal court, the lean may go the other way in cases of self defense and I would like to see data specific to such circumstance.

Not sure if the studies are conducted by self-defense. I have only seen them categorized by the type of charge and/or case, like murder 1/capital crime, serious felony A.K.A. non-capital crimes (murder 2, manslaughter), misdemeanors and civil cases.
 
Not sure if the studies are conducted by self-defense. I have only seen them categorized by the type of charge and/or case, like murder 1/capital crime, serious felony A.K.A. non-capital crimes (murder 2, manslaughter), misdemeanors and civil cases.

Well, you're certainly deeper into it than I. I hope we find more directly relevant data. Perhaps a tendency to convict a defendent claiming merely innocence does not correlate with a tendency regarding a defendent claiming self defense. I find the latter more empathetic.
 
The judge and 12 person jury is based on Jesus and the 12 apostles, very scientific

And 700 years of common law history...

Almost 200 years of constitution history...

Recent studies by the Florida Law Review Board....

But no you right, just dismiss it all:lol:
 
And 700 years of common law history...

Almost 200 years of constitution history...

Recent studies by the Florida Law Review Board....

But no you right, just dismiss it all:lol:

all that history is still based on the arbitrary number set in 725
 
all that history is still based on the arbitrary number set in 725

For intents and purposes, the origins of our trial by jury system date back to Æthelred the Unready, specifically his Wanton Code and Henry II of England, his Assize of Clarendon act.

So I have to ask, what does your bible thumping have to do with this discussion?

So because Jesus had 12 apostles....our trial by jury is based upon that...yet in purpose they are completely different and unrelated...okay:lol:

How about this. Please explain how they are related? Or how one originates from the other? They both use the number 12? Okay:lol:
 
For intents and purposes, the origins of our trial by jury system date back to Æthelred the Unready, specifically his Wanton Code and Henry II of England, his Assize of Clarendon act.

So I have to ask, what does your bible thumping have to do with this discussion?

So because Jesus had 12 apostles....our trial by jury is based upon that...yet in purpose they are completely different and unrelated...okay:lol:

How about this. Please explain how they are related? Or how one originates from the other? They both use the number 12? Okay:lol:

That is absurd you know that is not what I said. I said that the NUMBER of jurors is based on Jesus having 12 apostles. It was decided that by Morgan of Glamorgan, the Prince of Wales in 725 A.D.
 
That is absurd you know that is not what I said. I said that the NUMBER of jurors is based on Jesus having 12 apostles. It was decided that by Morgan of Glamorgan, the Prince of Wales in 725 A.D.

Yes we know, Jesus this and Jesus that:roll:
 
Yes we know, Jesus this and Jesus that:roll:

Your distaste for the 12 man jury's biblical roots doesn't change history. Just read the SCOTUS decision in Williams v Florida that allowed the constitutionality of 6 man juries.

One of the ancient kings of Wales, Morgan of Gla-Morgan, to whom is accredited the adoption of the trial by jury in A. D. 725, calls it the 'Apostolic Law.' 'For,' said he, 'as Christ and his twelve apostles were finally to judge the world, so human tribunals should be composed of the king and twelve wise men.'"

In this connection, it is interesting to note the following oath, required of the early 12-man jury:

Hear this, ye Justices! that I will speak the truth of that which ye shall ask of me on the part of the king, and I will do faithfully to the best of my endeavour. So help me God, and these holy Apostles.

Williams v. Florida
 
How many alternate jurors are we supposed to have?
 
No, easier to convict.

There is a reason why Florida leads the nation in wrongful convictions:

On the question whether jurors in the minority were less able to resist
conformity pressure from the majority in six-person juries than in twelveperson juries, the Court cited several empirical studies. Relying on these
studies, the Court concluded that the critical factor was the ratio of
majority to minority members, which would not change merely by cutting
the jury size in half:
“Studies of the operative factors contributing to small
group deliberation and decisionmaking suggest that jurors in the minority
on the first ballot are likely to be influenced by the proportional size of thmajority aligned against them.” Thus, a minority faction in a jury divided 10–2 would be no better able to withstand majority influence than
the minority faction in a jury divided 5–1. The critical factor, said the
Court, was the proportion, not the absolute number, of jurors in the
factions.
But the empirical studies found exactly the opposite. To quote
from those sources on the very pages to which the Court cited
• [F]or one or two jurors to hold out to the end, it would
appear necessary that they had companionship at the
beginning of the deliberations. The juror psychology
recalls a famous series of experiments by the psychologist
Asch and others which showed that in an ambiguous
situation a member of a group will doubt and finally
disbelieve his own correct observation if all other
members of the group claim that he must have been
mistaken. To maintain his original position, not only
before others but even before himself, it is necessary for
him to have at least one ally.
104
• The results clearly demonstrate that a disturbance of the
unanimity of the majority markedly increased the
independence of the critical subjects. . . . Indeed, we have
been able to show that a unanimous majority of 3 is, under
the given conditions, far more effective than a majority of
8 containing 1 dissenter.
105
• Participants in a discussion are often influenced to change
their opinion simply by the knowledge that an
overwhelming majority disagrees with them. Consistent
disapproval by the majority can shake a small minority’s
faith even in judgments it believes to be right. Such
pressures are most effective against a single dissenter and
fall off rapidly in efficacy as the size of the dissenting
coalition increases. A single ally gives mosost dissenters the
courage to voice their true convictions.


http://www.floridalawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Saks-BK.pdf


So we have 2 forum liberals you don't like the the traditional jury system. no suprise. I've learned the new definition of liberal is opposition to all traditional and hard fought civil and human rights for the ordinary people in favor for the lords and overseers.
 
12 jurors makes the case seem more substantial to the juror's minds, doubles the potential discussion and doubt and doubles the chance of a hold-out juror.

Elimination of the grand jury system allowed the police/DA to hold basically anyone in jail who isn't wealthy enough to post bond for at least a year - so no matter what the average person loses everything the person has - all possessions, job, plus a year or more in jail away from spouse, children, relatives and everyone else. In short, a person is determined guilty by both police and DA - and punished as guilty - even if perfectly innocent.
 
If George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin in one of 48 other states, I would agree he would most likely be found not guilty. Unfortunately for Zimmerman, he chose to live in Florida:lol:

For those of you clinging to the notion of "presumption of innocence", Florida only see's it as a minor inconvenience. They have done just about everything they can to **** it up:lol:

With all the cards stacked against Zimmerman, I highly doubt he will be cleared/found not guilty. This is just one more piece that reinforces my prediction of George Zimmerman being convicted of murder 2.



"Twice as easy, half the work to convict" ~ Florida Prosecutors

It is much easier for 6 jurors to convict.

For capital crimes it is even worse! Not only is this a problem of 6 jurors versus 12 jurors at trial, but of 6 versus 24; 12 grand jurors and 12 trial jurors who have seen the State’s evidence, 24 citizens who have reviewed the case in other states vs. only 6 in Florida. The Grand Jury requirement has been replaced by a signature from the State Attorney...yeah


You're fining injustice humorous is very revealing about yourself, isn't it?
 
So we have 2 forum liberals you don't like the the traditional jury system. no suprise. I've learned the new definition of liberal is opposition to all traditional and hard fought civil and human rights for the ordinary people in favor for the lords and overseers.

What are you talking about? I prefer the 12 man jury.
 
Back
Top Bottom