Arthur L. Aidala, one of the defense lawyers, described the juror, who works in information technology at a bank, as “meek.” Mr. Aidala called the man a “25-year-old kid who lives with his grandmother” and “a computer kid” and he argued that the man’s concerns should be examined further before being brushed aside....
Justice Farber appeared unmoved and denied the defense motion, noting that the man had never said any of the jurors were being threatened. The juror’s statements were vague, the judge said, adding that perhaps “his youth makes him uncomfortable to experiencing conflict.”
Maybe these young people today aren't up to debating about different opinions, but is the problem with this one juror who came forward to report his discomfort, or is it with the jurors who are, supposedly, doing the shunning? Maybe they don't want to hear what they don't agree with. What if the new generation is losing the capacity to serve on a jury?!
পোস্টগুলি
৩৭টি মন্তব্য:
That would be my guess, considering all the "neurodivergece" they claim and accommodations they demand.
Oh to be 25 again with these weak reeds as the competition!
"What if the new generation is losing the capacity to serve on a jury?!"
Interesting. The Wall St. Journal has an article talking about how colleges are issuing non-contact orders for minor stuff like roommates not getting along, etc.
Imagine being the one juror voting OJ guilty.
Young people are being brought up in the leftist world of lies.
Free link-
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/college-students-are-using-no-contact-orders-to-block-each-other-in-real-life-4e3272b1?st=38XcPx&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Perhaps we'll need to issue burner phones and anonymous handles to all jurors so they can conduct their deliberations in a manner consistent with their socialization?
Wait a minute. The young juror said nothing. Another juror came forward to complain on his behalf.
The uncomfortable juror wasn't the one being shunned.
There are a great many people who report a crime because they pity the victim.
> What if the new generation is losing the capacity to serve on a jury?
The generation of trigger warnings and 'my truth'? Of course they're losing the capacity!
I doubt jurors have ever had the capacity to fairly deliberate, rationally argue, and render a just verdict, generally. Maybe we need a better system
The 25 year old "meek" juror is the reporting juror. The article gives no details about the "shunned" juror, that I recall.
Having served on serveral juries, nothing would surprise me. I didn't understand the trope "Most people are idiots" until I met my fellow jurors. X number were always basing their opinions on a misunderstanding of the evidence or believing that ANY doubt was reasonable. Others didn't like the police or the victim for some reason and wanted to vote based on that.
The juror being shunned probably presented some dumb argument, got shot down, and kept on presenting it. Finally, the other jurors decided to ignore him. Libtards show the same mental pattern.
"Wait a minute. The young juror said nothing. Another juror came forward to complain on his behalf. The uncomfortable juror wasn't the one being shunned."
"The 25 year old "meek" juror is the reporting juror. The article gives no details about the "shunned" juror, that I recall."
I know. I hope nothing in my post seems otherwise.
To this reader, the present time is another country. The young shall inherit the earth. You can rely on the sun, though.
So far.
The NYT quote was so confusing. I know they need to respect confidentiality, but they couldn't say "Juror 1" or something?
Instead of Twelve Angry Men - Twelve Triggered Twinks!
JSM
yes they have totally pinned the tail on him, thought crime apparently,
it reminds me how none of the jurors in the last kangaroo trial in new york, were never heard from again
Basement Boy can't stand up to defend his own opinion--but he and his confreres will circle like a pack of hyenas when they are cancelling someone guilty of "wrongthink". Now if Basement Boy's problem is that people over 40 can push him around, that's another issue.
Basement Boy can't stand up to defend his own opinion--but he and his confreres will circle like a pack of hyenas when they are cancelling someone guilty of "wrongthink". Now if Basement Boy's problem is that people over 40 can push him around, that's another issue.
The problem, Skeptical Voter, is that this meek juror may be the solve vote for acquittal, and a man's fate hangs on him. If the juror is being "shunned," it almost certainly means they differ from the majority opinion and his/her concerns are not being allowed to be presented, which is a much different thing than their being aired and disagreed with.
Sole vote, that is.
so far the evidence seems weak with his blunderbuss they employed,
"The 25 year old "meek" juror is the reporting juror. The article gives no details about the "shunned" juror, that I recall."
Give them both a wedgie and move on.
"I doubt jurors have ever had the capacity to fairly deliberate, rationally argue, and render a just verdict, generally."
People with that capacity are routinely weeded out during jury selection. Mark Twain wrote about it in the 1800s:
The men who murdered Virginia's original twenty-six cemetery-occupants were never punished. Why? Because Alfred the Great, when he invented trial by jury and knew that he had admirably framed it to secure justice in his age of the world, was not aware that in the nineteenth century the condition of things would be so entirely changed that unless he rose from the grave and altered the jury plan to meet the emergency, it would prove the most ingenious and infallible agency for defeating justice that human wisdom could contrive. For how could he imagine that we simpletons would go on using his jury plan after circumstances had stripped it of its usefulness, any more than he could imagine that we would go on using his candle-clock after we had invented chronometers? In his day news could not travel fast, and hence he could easily find a jury of honest, intelligent men who had not heard of the case they were called to try-- but in our day of telegraphs and newspapers his plan compels us to swear in juries composed of fools and rascals, because the system rigidly excludes honest men and men of brains.
I remember one of those sorrowful farces, in Virginia, which we call a jury trial. A noted desperado killed Mr. B., a good citizen, in the most wanton and cold-blooded way. Of course the papers were full of it, and all men capable of reading, read about it. And of course all men not deaf and dumb and idiotic, talked about it. A jury-list was made out, and Mr. B. L., a prominent banker and a valued citizen, was questioned precisely as he would have been questioned in any court in America:
"Have you heard of this homicide?"
"Yes."
"Have you held conversations upon the subject?"
"Yes."
"Have you formed or expressed opinions about it?"
"Yes."
"Have you read the newspaper accounts of it?"
"Yes."
"We do not want you."
continued...
A minister, intelligent, esteemed, and greatly respected; a merchant of high character and known probity; a mining superintendent of intelligence and unblemished reputation; a quartz mill owner of excellent standing, were all questioned in the same way, and all set aside. Each said the public talk and the newspaper reports had not so biased his mind but that sworn testimony would overthrow his previously formed opinions and enable him to render a verdict without prejudice and in accordance with the facts. But of course such men could not be trusted with the case. Ignoramuses alone could mete out unsullied justice.
When the peremptory challenges were all exhausted, a jury of twelve men was impaneled--a jury who swore they had neither heard, read, talked about nor expressed an opinion concerning a murder which the very cattle in the corrals, the Indians in the sage-brush and the stones in the streets were cognizant of! It was a jury composed of two desperadoes, two low beer-house politicians, three bar-keepers, two ranchmen who could not read, and three dull, stupid, human donkeys! It actually came out afterward, that one of these latter thought that incest and arson were the same thing.
The verdict rendered by this jury was, Not Guilty. What else could one expect?
The jury system puts a ban upon intelligence and honesty, and a premium upon ignorance, stupidity and perjury. It is a shame that we must continue to use a worthless system because it was good a thousand years ago. In this age, when a gentleman of high social standing, intelligence and probity, swears that testimony given under solemn oath will outweigh, with him, street talk and newspaper reports based upon mere hearsay, he is worth a hundred jurymen who will swear to their own ignorance and stupidity, and justice would be far safer in his hands than in theirs. Why could not the jury law be so altered as to give men of brains and honesty and equal chance with fools and miscreants? Is it right to show the present favoritism to one class of men and inflict a disability on another, in a land whose boast is that all its citizens are free and equal? I am a candidate for the legislature. I desire to tamper with the jury law. I wish to so alter it as to put a premium on intelligence and character, and close the jury box against idiots, blacklegs, and people who do not read newspapers. But no doubt I shall be defeated-- every effort I make to save the country "misses fire."
I don't understand why people are speaking poorly of this man. He saw behavior that he believed was unethical and he reported it. Maybe he was overly concerned over nothing, but I'd prefer someone like this than someone who doesn't take it seriously.
Why make assumptions because he's a "computer kid"? I have no idea what they mean by that - he plays MMORPGs all day or is he in tech? Does he live with his grandmother because he can't make it on his own or is she old and he's the only family member willing to watch out for her? I'm assuming the second choice for each of those but it looks like I'm in the minority.
11 Angry Men and a Weenie.
Somebody uptrhread mentioned 12 angry men. This movie, IMO, has done more damage to the legal system than anything else. Why?
Because, the movie makes dumb people think that "Doubt" means "reasonable Doubt". Because it gives people an excuse for the believing that someone who testified under oath they Saw X, didn't really see X.
And it makes jurors think they can play prosecutor and defense attorney and enter evidence not shown at the trial.
In the film, two people testify under oath they saw the defendent kill the father. The knife is the same type bought by the defendent. And the defendent can't explain where he was at the time of the killing. Yet, because of blah de blah, the defendent is supposed to be not guilty!
When real life people see this sort of thing and apply it to real life - its a disaster.
Since when did we ever think that one member born in a generation (in this case Z) spoke for and had the unqualified support from its entire membership?
The article is awfully vague -- what exactly was this "shunning," and why was it of such concern to this other juror that he wanted to be excused? Was it potentially just pretextual because he wanted to be released early? I suppose the details aren't all available to the writer, but the news article is rather frustrating in that regard.
Re: RCOCEAN II:
Because it gives people an excuse for the believing that someone who testified under oath they Saw X, didn't really see X.
After twenty years of working as a lawyer and interviewing witnesses in internal investigations, I also believe that many times people who testify they saw X years ago didn't actually see X. It's often apparent that they are misremembering because in the course of our investigation, we can tell from contemporaneous evidence that X happened somewhere far away, or much later, or long before. It's usually not because the witness is lying. Rather, witness recollection is usually just garbage.
When representing witnesses, we spend a lot of time "refreshing their recollection" with contemporary records. In theory, refreshing recollection is about restoring actual contemporaneous recollection, but a lot of it is just about preparing the witness for the reality that if they offer up their honest, untainted recollection that they saw X, the investigator is going to confront them with fifty emails that show that was impossible. People recall what they recall, but memory is a tricky and unreliable thing.
My professional experience that witnesses are so often proveably mistaken about basic facts and sequences of events in their recollection makes me highly skeptical of pretty much all witness testimony. They're helpful for piecing together other evidence, but you can't really rely on witness testimony on its own.
12 Mean Girls
with apologies to Aggie at 7:28
I know the men were shunning in Witness but I feel like shunning is totally female.
It's passive-aggressive pacifism.
If Hollywood ever makes a movie called The Shunning, men will not want to see it.
Maybe if you hired Vin Diesel. And men would think, "oh, it's ironic." And then you go to the movie and it's the silent treatment and cold shoulders and peer pressure. The big climax is when Vin cries out in the open.
"They...they wouldn't talk to me."
I've been shunning people on the Althouse blog, and it doesn't even slow them down.
I'm starting to think they don't even know they're being shunned!
What we need is a liberal weenie to come in here and point out all the shunning that's happening on the Althouse blog to the authorities.
An innocent man has better odds at 3 card Monte than with our legal system, and of course the cost of losing is catastrophic and the winnings nonexistent. I fear my government more than anything else in my life. Any contact is avoided at all costs.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.