- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Unanimous Juries- How ya votin and why?
Posted on 10/26/18 at 4:35 pm to LSURussian
Posted on 10/26/18 at 4:35 pm to LSURussian
quote:
To repeat, only one sheriff supports the change to unanimous verdicts and ZERO district attorneys support the change.
Correct, why would a sheriff or DA be voting against his best interests. Both get a lot of mileage for putting people in the pokey politcally (votes from the people) and the state....More money to build bigger jails and the per diem hey get for housing state prisoners....10-2 works good for them
2
Posted on 10/26/18 at 4:36 pm to LSURussian
I voted but I agree it should be unanimous on capital cases.
There is a segment of Louisiana society that simply will not vote to convict a thief if the cops are the wrong race.
There is a segment of Louisiana society that simply will not vote to convict a thief if the cops are the wrong race.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 4:37 pm to The Johnny Lawrence
If I was voting in La, vote yes for unanimous jury required.
Reason: too many criminal laws, laws criminalizing acts that should not be criminal. Juries and jurists have the right to find the law is the problem and not the defendant.
For instance: It is criminal to leave kids outdoors unsupervised now. It is criminal for parents to allow kids to ride bikes without being wrapped head to toe in padding. The Hell if I am going to punish a parent for letting kids be kids, much less the punish the kids.
Too much SJW, societal encumbrances nowadays. Freedom is American.
Reason: too many criminal laws, laws criminalizing acts that should not be criminal. Juries and jurists have the right to find the law is the problem and not the defendant.
For instance: It is criminal to leave kids outdoors unsupervised now. It is criminal for parents to allow kids to ride bikes without being wrapped head to toe in padding. The Hell if I am going to punish a parent for letting kids be kids, much less the punish the kids.
Too much SJW, societal encumbrances nowadays. Freedom is American.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 4:37 pm to The Johnny Lawrence
Gotta be unanimous. You can't have jurors voting not guilty without also assuming reasonable doubt.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 4:37 pm to KiwiHead
No one has to fabricate prisoners, there are more than enough Shitty people who commit crime to keep our prisons full regardless.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 4:42 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
Correct
No. See my link in response to Russian. Even with the self interest issue, quite a few DAs have come out in favor.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 5:00 pm to The Johnny Lawrence
(SIAP) I think it should be taken into consideration the disparate amount of resources that are typically available to the state and to a defendant.
While I think that a 10-2 verdict setup makes for a more efficient judicial system (efficient is a bad word to use there), for me, the resource advantage the state has makes me want to hold them to a unanimous verdict standard.
While I think that a 10-2 verdict setup makes for a more efficient judicial system (efficient is a bad word to use there), for me, the resource advantage the state has makes me want to hold them to a unanimous verdict standard.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 5:03 pm to LSURussian
quote:There ya go..... Stay in the dark ages Louisiana. And 50th in everything. I bet if your arse was on trial you would want a 12 juror conviction. When i read this board its no wonder Louisiana is dead last in every fricking category. A semi red state run by democrats.... Sickening
A jury voting 10-2 to convict on non-capital offense cases is okay with me.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 5:05 pm to The Johnny Lawrence
I would normally be appalled at the idea of not having unanimous jury verdicts especially in felony cases that can land somebody in jail for more than 20 years but in Louisiana we really aren't smart enough to handle unanimous juries as so many posters here with their stories can attest to.
On the other hand a lot of these protest votes on juries are actually part of the fabric of our justice system from the very beginning. Jury nullification is an important check and balance and some would say the final check and balance of the people on the laws that the legislative branches pass and the judicial branches attempt to enforce.
With all that in mind I think I'm going to abstain from this ballot measure and let people who have stronger opinions on this matter, hold more weight.
On the other hand a lot of these protest votes on juries are actually part of the fabric of our justice system from the very beginning. Jury nullification is an important check and balance and some would say the final check and balance of the people on the laws that the legislative branches pass and the judicial branches attempt to enforce.
With all that in mind I think I'm going to abstain from this ballot measure and let people who have stronger opinions on this matter, hold more weight.
This post was edited on 10/26/18 at 5:06 pm
Posted on 10/26/18 at 5:16 pm to texridder
quote:
(SIAP) I think it should be taken into consideration the disparate amount of resources that are typically available to the state and to a defendant.
While I think that a 10-2 verdict setup makes for a more efficient judicial system (efficient is a bad word to use there), for me, the resource advantage the state has makes me want to hold them to a unanimous verdict standard.
We actually agree on something for once, its amazing what can be accomplished when we take our partisan hats off in the pursuit of solutions (well you anyway, I keep it real 24/7 homie)
Posted on 10/26/18 at 5:34 pm to Thunder
The state is in the dark ages because barbarians run the street at night and our law enforcement has been hamstrung to do anything about it.
The issue shouldn't be whether or not there are unanimous juries but whether a large number of people of this state are competent to vote or serve on juries. I would be fine with martial law and military tribunals in Louisiana.
I would estimate 30% or Juries have incompetents with IQs in the intellectually disabled range. It should be 9 out of 12 minimum, maybe even a simple majority.
The issue shouldn't be whether or not there are unanimous juries but whether a large number of people of this state are competent to vote or serve on juries. I would be fine with martial law and military tribunals in Louisiana.
I would estimate 30% or Juries have incompetents with IQs in the intellectually disabled range. It should be 9 out of 12 minimum, maybe even a simple majority.
This post was edited on 10/26/18 at 8:40 pm
Posted on 10/26/18 at 5:34 pm to texridder
quote:
While I think that a 10-2 verdict setup makes for a more efficient judicial system (efficient is a bad word to use there), for me, the resource advantage the state has makes me want to hold them to a unanimous verdict standard.
But can we automatically assume that 12-0 is a disadvantage for the State when prosecuting defendants who have limited resources? I think we can agree that it will lead to more hung juries and probably more jury compromises on sentences. I think we can also agree that most hung juries are going to more often than not get retried. That can be argued to potentially give an even bigger advantage to the State with their abundance of resources. They can afford new exports, new tests, and new avenues of investigation that was/is not available to the defense on the second trial.
Again, I think that what is being lost in all of this is that the rules go both ways. You will now need unanimous in order to acquit. It is already extremely rare to have that. Which raises another question, do you think it is the 2 hold outs on a guilty or not guilty verdict that are more likely to sway? I don’t know if we know that
Posted on 10/26/18 at 6:07 pm to nola000
quote:
With all that in mind I think I'm going to abstain from this ballot measure and let people who have stronger opinions on this matter, hold more weight.
That’s an idiotic viewpoint. Moderates and those on the fence sitting out is exactly why every issue in this state and country has become a screaming match between the most passionate 5% on each side.
It’s your civic duty to educate yourself, formulate an opinion, and vote. Do it.
This post was edited on 10/26/18 at 6:09 pm
Posted on 10/26/18 at 6:15 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Its supposed to be difficult to convict someone, and someone voting no tells me theres reasonable doubt.
Obviously 11 out of the 12 did not find reasonable doubt. I'm fine with it. I have been on a jury.
We voted 11-1 to convict (armed robbery). There were 2 eye witnesses and (grainy) video. One lady asked if it was "OK" if she voted not guilty when we did our polling. We said "sure" we only need 11 and we have that. She was just very uncomfortable with sending a man to jail. I think we would have convinced her, had we needed 12.
Turns out the guy was a 3 time loser and already in jail on other felony convictions. He is now in Angola for life.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 6:18 pm to The Johnny Lawrence
What happens when there is a murderer on trial (and the facts point to guilty for real) and someone can get to one juror and buy them off? So a really bad hombre could walk away free by tying up 1 juror. That killer would walk away free. Something to think about. All it would take is one person to take a bribe. There are a lot of people who would take a bribe. I read a survey recently that asked what would people do for $1million bucks. I was shocked at what they would do. I bet many people could be bought for $25,000 easily.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 6:24 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Nah, there could be 1 or 2 jurors who don't base their opinion on the evidence but on emotions instead.
What you say is a decision based on evidence, I say is a decision based on evidence. What I say is a decision based on evidence, you say is a decision based on emotion.
Who is right?
Posted on 10/26/18 at 6:26 pm to CDawson
quote:
You can't have jurors voting not guilty without also assuming reasonable doubt
Literally, you can.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 6:26 pm to The Johnny Lawrence
quote:
"Because 48 other States do it" isn't a reason to do it, imo.
You're right. I'm gonna bet that Louisiana is a collectively smarter state than the other 48 and have it figured out while no one else does.
quote:
I just don't love doing something because other people or States have done it without first analyzing the underlying reasons it is better or more appropriate.
You really don't think this has ever been analyzed or debated? C'mon. Louisiana is smarter than that and knows it has.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 6:27 pm to 6R12
quote:
What happens when there is a murderer on trial (and the facts point to guilty for real) and someone can get to one juror and buy them off? So a really bad hombre could walk away free by tying up 1 juror. That killer would walk away free. Something to think about.
Why do people keep repeating this utterly incorrect nonsense? A hung jury causes a mistrial. The state has a year to retry the case from that date. Nobody is “walking free” when the jury hangs. The state can try someone as many times as necessary to get a valid jury verdict.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 6:28 pm to Baron
quote:
That can be argued to potentially give an even bigger advantage to the State with their abundance of resources.
Which state are we talking about here again?
Page 6 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News