Thread: Can we have a truly unbiased jury?

I'm against death penalty for a number of reasons, impartial juries are one of them.

Hearsay is inadmissible as evidence in a court of law.

However, juries can be infected and swayed by hearsay, which is one reason that a jury selection process is so drawn out.

Current advances in forensic science can eliminate false evidence when presented, so I tend to trust a trial process where emphasis is placed on forensic evidence, be it pathological, psychological, geological, financial or any other forensic evidence is exhibited for consideration by a panel of judges and a jury if that were possible, as a method of avoiding false convictions.

The death sentence is a quick and welcome way out for some, Timothy McVeigh comes to mind in that case.

Lifelong confinement in a secure institution with labour is my recommendation for murder, although I'll admit at times that my feelings run to wanting to see the noose returned to the beam.

the death penalty is there for some sort need for revenge... eye for an eye kind of thing...

I only think the death penalty should be used for only the most vile and heinous of crimes. I also think the overwhelming burden on the American penal system has left no room for rehabilitation. Criminals come out of the system far worse than when they went in.

I have no answers for you NR

the Romans were creative... they would put a criminal in bag with a dog, monkey and a snake and throw them into the water... that's fucking creative!

Originally Posted by ENT

Hearsay is inadmissible as evidence in a court of law.

However, juries can be infected and swayed by hearsay, which is one reason that a jury selection process is so drawn out.

Current advances in forensic science can eliminate false evidence when presented, so I tend to trust a trial process where emphasis is placed on forensic evidence, be it pathological, psychological, geological, financial or any other forensic evidence is exhibited for consideration by a panel of judges and a jury if that were possible, as a method of avoiding false convictions.

The death sentence is a quick and welcome way out for some, Timothy McVeigh comes to mind in that case.

Lifelong confinement in a secure institution with labour is my recommendation for murder, although I'll admit at times that my feelings run to wanting to see the noose returned to the beam.

Ent, please give me an example of a trial that used forensic geological evidence in order to avoid a false conviction, was it a murder trial?

^ Dirt samples on tires, shoes matched to the unique dirt at the crime scene.
Must have been done somewhere, I saw it on CSI.

Forensic geology is the presentation of findings resulting from geological determination of a given rock sample, of any form, in a court of law.

Geological analysis is used constantly in business, but how it's presented in court in say a criminal case is forensic ie. pertaining to law.

Forensic geology was used in the manslaughter trial of Randy Blythe.

It proved that he wasn't really a rock star.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_B...slaughter_case

Originally Posted by ENT

Hearsay is inadmissible as evidence in a court of law.

However, juries can be infected and swayed by hearsay, which is one reason that a jury selection process is so drawn out.

Current advances in forensic science can eliminate false evidence when presented, so I tend to trust a trial process where emphasis is placed on forensic evidence, be it pathological, psychological, geological, financial or any other forensic evidence is exhibited for consideration by a panel of judges and a jury if that were possible, as a method of avoiding false convictions.

The death sentence is a quick and welcome way out for some, Timothy McVeigh comes to mind in that case.

Lifelong confinement in a secure institution with labour is my recommendation for murder, although I'll admit at times that my feelings run to wanting to see the noose returned to the beam.

Oh the irony!! How can you say that? You weren't there when it happened and didn't witness it personally so based on your skeptical position on other similar topics there's no way you can be impartial and consider the evidence at hand..

What alternative is there to a jury trial that would be free of bias? Judges hold bias too...even though they are not supposed to. Panels of judges are often split when confronted with the same evidence and facts. They see the same things in different ways.....because of their biases....just like anyone else.

Forensic evidence is fine up to a point, but even good forensic evidence can be challenged and ultimately interpreted in different ways. Some forensic science used in trials is just junk science and is quite often countered with more junk science....and to make matters worse, nobody on the bench or the jury is a scientist.....

could juries have a percentage of professional jurors ?

I think there is a lot greater chance of getting a fair unbiased decision from a jury than from a judge whose very job and prospects depend upon them complying with the establishment or their corporate interests. What I do not agree with is the ability for counsel to change jury members, trying to construct a jury appropriate for their case. It should indeed be completely random, and from another party of the respected country.

I'm unsure if a jury can achieve a verdict which could be considered 'fair' knowing that a death sentence may be imposed.

Jury members are normally upstanding members of the community who possess a conscience. The state then requesting those individuals to form an opinion and divorce themselves from the outcome of their vote, whereby a person may/will die, is obtuse in the extreme.

The state should not be expecting good citizens to do their dirty work for them.

Notably, in the 21st Century legalised murder is mostly reserved for 'developing' nations.

Originally Posted by ENT

Forensic geology is the presentation of findings resulting from geological determination of a given rock sample, of any form, in a court of law.

Geological analysis is used constantly in business, but how it's presented in court in say a criminal case is forensic ie. pertaining to law.

Which programme are you referring to CSI or NCIS?

Originally Posted by baldrick

professional jurors ?

Who pays the piper picks the tune.

Here's what I would like to see. Court cases run as usual, all video'd, but with no jurors in the room. Then, after the prosecution and defence have done their piece, a jury is shown all the vidoes and evidence in one sitting. The lawyers / barristers are not shown, and nor are their voices. Their questions are written out, and any emotional rheotic etc is removed. Juries then make their judgement on the facts rather than which lawyer they like the best. It would keep their time spent to a minimum, without them being exposed to all the delays etc. One day, one video.

Whilst I can think of plenty who surely deserve the death penalty, there have been too many people that have been wrongly convicted and released on appeal.
Mothers convicted of murdering their own children, then the forensic evidence found to be unreliable.

I have absolutely no problem with the death penalty simply because some humans are not humans at all and comit the worst crimes imaginable like raping and dismembering babies and other niceties.

I feel that the people that do not agree with the death penalty would change there mind in a millisecond if one of there own children came face to face with such a hideous end.

The emotional and physical pain that certain individuals chose to inflict on others can only be countered by the Death penalty. Just off them, easy as that.

A slow very painful death preferably.

There's only one problem with the death penalty and that is its all over much too quickly.

what is henry kissenger, george bush, and tony blair doing right now.
if citizens are a danger to society then they should be locked up until shown
that they can function in a civilised manner
if that is possible.
plan B send them to australia, .