STORM2K

Yesterday, two innocent people were convicted of crimes that they did not convict ... even worse, there was only circumstancial evidence, and absolutely NO PHYSICAL evidence whatsoever. Furthermore, the persons that were wrongly convicted are very, very close to me and I'm trying to cope and figure out an avenue to vent my pinned-up anger ...

2004 cannot end fast enough ...

SF

I'm really sorry to hear about your plight and can well understand your anger.

Some years ago I heard that it was estimated that about 1/3 of the people in jail were wrongfully convicted. I don't know how much things have changed (for better or worse) since then.

That's why it's so hard for me to decide whether I'm for or against the death penalty.

I'm also sorry to hear about that, Stormfury. I can well understand why you have no faith in our judicial system as I've been in that position myself.

can you post info so we can judge for ourselves?
what cases?

Sorry to hear that SF!

rainstorm wrote:can you post info so we can judge for ourselves?
what cases?

It's the most highly publicly case in Dorchester County history, and will likely be shown on Court TV.

SF

I take it your referring to two DIFFERENT cases, SF? I found several news articles on one case in particular where there was no DNA evidence -- only a watch and alleged jail-house convictions.

I don't know what to say Mike Sometimes it TRULY makes me wonder myself. Being involved in a LIMITED capacity mind you, with Law Enforcement, sometimes I FEEL like I'm wasting my time, some judge/jury will dismiss a case I BUSTED my butt on and in other cases, they'll let the GUILTY walk and prosecute the VICTIM! I don't understand either Mike....need to talk? PM me!

Dennis

I understand how you feel a libble bit. My daughter was injured severly in a car accident and we ended up having to sue. She got very little money and a case the next month with much less severe injuries got a ton. Gof figure. I would hate to be involved in a criminal case with the jury pool available these days. There are some really ignorant people serving on juries because the intelligent and educated usually find a way to get off.

bevgo wrote:I understand how you feel a libble bit. My daughter was injured severly in a car accident and we ended up having to sue. She got very little money and a case the next month with much less severe injuries got a ton. Gof figure. I would hate to be involved in a criminal case with the jury pool available these days. There are some really ignorant people serving on juries because the intelligent and educated usually find a way to get off.

Partially correct. The jury selection process, called the voy-deua(sorry for misspell), does not want to select intelligent discerning people. You can start with a pool of 50 and say 7 are businessmen in suits and ties, and the end of the day, all 7 will be left out while hoochie mammas abound. The juries are not so much a jury of peers but a jury of most likely to acquit, generally disenfranchised persons themselves they have an extraordinary predisposition to feel sorrow for the criminal rather than the victim.

It is not the juries fault here, it is their lawyers. Circumstantial evidence is easy to beat if they had a good attorney. Makes it harder on the DA to present his/her case.

WEATHER53 wrote:The jury selection process, called the voy-deua(sorry for misspell), does not want to select intelligent discerning people. You can start with a pool of 50 and say 7 are businessmen in suits and ties, and the end of the day, all 7 will be left out while hoochie mammas abound. The juries are not so much a jury of peers but a jury of most likely to acquit, generally disenfranchised persons themselves they have an extraordinary predisposition to feel sorrow for the criminal rather than the victim.

OJ knows all about that

GalvestonDuck wrote:I take it your referring to two DIFFERENT cases, SF? I found several news articles on one case in particular where there was no DNA evidence -- only a watch and alleged jail-house convictions.

One case, and BINGO ... that's the case, Shawn.

SF

j wrote:

WEATHER53 wrote:The jury selection process, called the voy-deua(sorry for misspell), does not want to select intelligent discerning people. You can start with a pool of 50 and say 7 are businessmen in suits and ties, and the end of the day, all 7 will be left out while hoochie mammas abound. The juries are not so much a jury of peers but a jury of most likely to acquit, generally disenfranchised persons themselves they have an extraordinary predisposition to feel sorrow for the criminal rather than the victim.

OJ knows all about that

Classic cases of the guilty goes free, and innocent get screwed ...

SF

WEATHER53 wrote:

bevgo wrote:I understand how you feel a libble bit. My daughter was injured severly in a car accident and we ended up having to sue. She got very little money and a case the next month with much less severe injuries got a ton. Gof figure. I would hate to be involved in a criminal case with the jury pool available these days. There are some really ignorant people serving on juries because the intelligent and educated usually find a way to get off.

Partially correct. The jury selection process, called the voy-deua(sorry for misspell), does not want to select intelligent discerning people. You can start with a pool of 50 and say 7 are businessmen in suits and ties, and the end of the day, all 7 will be left out while hoochie mammas abound. The juries are not so much a jury of peers but a jury of most likely to acquit, generally disenfranchised persons themselves they have an extraordinary predisposition to feel sorrow for the criminal rather than the victim.

Both side have an equal shot during Voir Dire. Other than strikes for cause, each side has only a certain amount of peremptories.

I have been selected for 2 juries the last 2 times I was called.

The last w/ Anthony Fauci, head of NIH, during the Sars scare.

Sorry to hear this SF. Our legal system can sure fail miserably.
...Jennifer...

I don't want this to get too messy but how many of the people who were just lamenting the screw-ups of our judicial system support the death penalty???

I'm very curious.....

stormie_skies wrote:I don't want this to get too messy but how many of the people who were just lamenting the screw-ups of our judicial system support the death penalty???

I'm very curious.....

My answer ... I want nothing to do with the system ... period ...

Understandable, given the circumstances, Stormsfury ~ and Im sorry to hear about your friends situation

Mike, did they have public defenders? Can they appeal?