It's REALLY Unfortunate that Rapists are let out of Prison...

[tha malcontent™]

It's REALLY Unfortunate that Rapists are let out of Prison...

Police: Bodies found at rapist's home - Crime & courts- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33563299/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts)

The first two bodies were found Thursday night when police went to Sowell’s home to arrest him on charges of felonious assault and rape. Police say he had spent 15 years in prison for a 1989 rape.

Putting this Dog Down back in '89 would have Saved Lives...

:)

peace...

[Kegler300]

They should have their nutz snipped first IMO...

[tha malcontent™]

They should have their nutz snipped first IMO...

And then Some...

They can Still Murder, as this **** Proved.

:)

peace...

[Kegler300]

A murdering rapist needs nothing less than azz-raped with a broom stick and then executed.

[Clintville]

As cool as it would be, castration would violate the 8th Amendment.

[JediMindTrick]

It's REALLY Unfortunate that Rapists are let out of Prison...

Police: Bodies found at rapist's home - Crime & courts- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33563299/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts)

The first two bodies were found Thursday night when police went to Sowell’s home to arrest him on charges of felonious assault and rape. Police say he had spent 15 years in prison for a 1989 rape.

Putting this Dog Down back in '89 would have Saved Lives...

:)

peace...

Rapists, other than the statuatory type, should spend life in prison. But unfortunately thats not possible because conservatives back in the 80's and 90's felt it was more important to lock up non violent drug users under mandatory minimums which overcrowded our prisons forcing the release on parole of many of those without mandatory minimums.

[tha malcontent™]

As cool as it would be, castration would violate the 8th Amendment.

In your Opinion... And in the Opinion of a Court that once Upheld Slavery.

:)

peace...

[tha malcontent™]

Rapists, other than the statuatory type, should spend life in prison. But unfortunately thats not possible because conservatives back in the 80's and 90's felt it was more important to lock up non violent drug users under mandatory minimums which overcrowded our prisons forcing the release on parole of many of those without mandatory minimums.

Got any Stats on that?...

Like only Drug Offenses got them Life?...

And of course, how Liberals in Congress Fought Against it.

:)

peace...

[stoked]

The thing is, who knows how many people he's really killed and, you know, once they get out after serving time the first time they are caught, of course they have to kill all their victims. Nothing good can come out of it.

[mtdim]

JediMindTrick is right. The problem is prison overcrowding, and the solution is to stop sending people who are not a danger to society to prison.

[gdoane]

Rapists, other than the statuatory type, should spend life in prison.

No, they should be executed. Anybody who has committed a crime worse than a 4-year sentence is going to cost taxpayers over $28,000 per year to incarcerate which means keeping these worthless bastages alive will cost well over $100,000. Their lives are not worth six figures.


But unfortunately thats not possible because conservatives back in the 80's and 90's felt it was more important to lock up non violent drug users under mandatory minimums which overcrowded our prisons forcing the release on parole of many of those without mandatory minimums.

Overcrowding is only a problem because liberal judges say it is. I couldn't care less if a convicted felon didn't have enough personal space. Shove 'em 600 in a cell if need be and if they don't fit, use a bulldozer to MAKE 'em fit. They're convicted felons, complete scum of the Earth. I don't remember any declaration of be nice to convicts week.

[tha malcontent™]

JediMindTrick is right. The problem is prison overcrowding, and the solution is to stop sending people who are not a danger to society to prison.

She doesn't Share your Enthusiasm....

Rapists are in Prison for a Reason...

:)

peace...

[traditional_woman]

How come the story doesn't say how long the bodies were there? He looks very psychotic.

[mtdim]

She doesn't Share your Enthusiasm....

Rapists are in Prison for a Reason...

:)

peace...

Agreed. They're also let out of prison for a reason: there's no room for them. Unfortunately, we have limited resources available for incarceration of criminals, and we're spending a good portion of those resources on people convicted of non-violent drug related crime. I say it's time to rearrange our priorities.

[Clintville]

In your Opinion... And in the Opinion of a Court that once Upheld Slavery.

No, I am pretty sure most of the civilized world does not punish people with castration and would agree that it is cruel.

And when was their a case involving the constitutionality of slavery or castration? Or are you just referring to the Supreme Court and law in general? Still, it is a fallacy.

[gdoane]

No, I am pretty sure most of the civilized world does not punish people with castration and would agree that it is cruel.

It's not punishment, it's prevention. People who were allowed to own guns under the 1st Amendment are stripped of their right to own weapons after their conviction, so then why should rapists be allowed to retain their weaponry?

It's not as if surgery on the male organ is cruel or unusual, after all some half of male infants born have a little nip and tuck done. That's hardly cruel, or unusual.

I'd rather see rapists dead, but castrated works for me too. Men who force themselves on women don't deserve to call themselves men anyway.

[FidelisAdMortem]

These animals cannot be rehabilitated.

Nobody rapes b/c they cant feed the family, ie robbery.

Its a crime of sick sadistic savages.

They must be removed from society.

[AutoRacer55]

It's not punishment, it's prevention. People who were allowed to own guns under the 1st Amendment are stripped of their right to own weapons after their conviction, so then why should rapists be allowed to retain their weaponry?

It's not as if surgery on the male organ is cruel or unusual, after all some half of male infants born have a little nip and tuck done. That's hardly cruel, or unusual.

I'd rather see rapists dead, but castrated works for me too. Men who force themselves on women don't deserve to call themselves men anyway.

1st amendment? C'mon Gene, knowing how much you know about the Constitution you should know which amendments are which.

[hatman]

It's not punishment, it's prevention. People who were allowed to own guns under the 1st Amendment are stripped of their right to own weapons after their conviction, so then why should rapists be allowed to retain their weaponry?

It's not as if surgery on the male organ is cruel or unusual, after all some half of male infants born have a little nip and tuck done. That's hardly cruel, or unusual.

I'd rather see rapists dead, but castrated works for me too. Men who force themselves on women don't deserve to call themselves men anyway.


In my state, they can hold convicted rapists after they have completed their full term. I don't know how they can do that constitutionally, but I'm off for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Commitment_Center

Do other states have something similar?

p.s. I believe child rapists and/or serial rapists should be executed, period.

[JediMindTrick]

Castration as a punishment is just dumb because it doesn't prevent anything. Rape is about abuse and degredation and castration won't stop that from happening. A rapist will just use his hands, or objects, or find other ways to abuse and degrade the victim. The answer is much longer prison sentences.

[gdoane]

1st amendment? C'mon Gene, knowing how much you know about the Constitution you should know which amendments are which.

Oops, my bad. Although if burning flag is a First Amendment Right, then shooting a gun is a form of communication too... just a really short one.

[notluzn]

I bet he voted Liberal as well.

[gdoane]

Castration as a punishment is just dumb because it doesn't prevent anything. Rape is about abuse and degredation and castration won't stop that from happening. A rapist will just use his hands, or objects, or find other ways to abuse and degrade the victim. The answer is much longer prison sentences.

It works on male animals like horses (Geldings), cats and dogs to tame them. It's certainly worth a try and besides, it's not like the guys are ever going to have girlfriends anyway.

I mean seriously, you're talking about a guy who is published on a sex offender list. If he gives his name and number to a girl and a bar and she Googles him she's going to say OH HELL NO! once she sees he's done 15 years in prison for raping a girl. That right there is world-class chick turn-off, the dude could have a web page where he dresses like Pippi Longstockings and still not be half the turn-off a convicted rape charge gets.

Guaranteed his mating days are OVER so what the heck does he need the equipment for? He'd never be able to use it!

[Dual867PowerMac]

In my state, they can hold convicted rapists after they have completed their full term. I don't know how they can do that constitutionally, but I'm off for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Commitment_Center

Do other states have something similar?
Do you really know what you're saying? Click the DSM IV link in that page you linked to and scroll down to the criticisms section.

I refer you to the first paragraph: "Beginning with the problem that there is no single objective diagnostic test for a mental illness in the field of psychiatry — a problem the DSM sidesteps by referring only to 'mental disorders', defined as dysfunctional psychological or behavioral patterns — the DSM-IV has come under various criticisms over the years."

As far as the constitutionality: I can't stand rapists and I especially despise them when their victims are children. But I can't see how this passes muster.

By the way, here's a relevant article (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Keeping+sex+offenders+off+the+streets.-a020610523)




p.s. I believe child rapists and/or serial rapists should be executed, period.
No. Like I said, I can't stand these parasites, but I oppose executing them. The death penalty has been proven to not be a deterrent and I believe there have been hundreds of innocents executed (such as Cameron Todd Willingham) since the death penalty was reinstated.

The high risk of an innocent being executed alone warrants the death penalty being permanently abolished.

[JediMindTrick]

No. Like I said, I can't stand these parasites, but I oppose executing them. The death penalty has been proven to not be a deterrent and I believe there have been hundreds of innocents executed (such as Cameron Todd Willingham) since the death penalty was reinstated.

The high risk of an innocent being executed alone warrants the death penalty being permanently abolished.

I'm anti DP too but lets be real, there haven't been hundreds of innocents executed since the reinstatement. If there were that would mean that somewhere around 20-30% of those executed were innocent. Mistakes are no where near that rampant. All told there have probably been less than 10 innocents executed and possibly less than 5. That said even one would be too many.

Besides the fact that they don't work, we shouldn't use irreversible punishments simply because of the risk of nailing an innocent with them. Bad rape convictions are much more prevalent than bad murder convictions, especially since in many rapes it comes down to he said / she said and buyers remorse. That latter term is what I call it when a woman gets drunk and horny, regrets what she did the next morning, and creates a rape fantasy in her mind to excuse her behavior. We had such a case in my town where a woman claimed she was raped by two guys at the same time. Luckily for the two guys one was kind of a sick perv of a different sort and he had a hidden video camera going in his room which caught the incident. It was very much a consensual threesome as the video proved. Without that video though it may well have went to trial and who knows what happens then. And some women just make up the rapes - think about the Duke Rape Case - those three boys would be convicted rapists right now if they hadn't come from rich families who could afford million dollar lawyers.

[AutoRacer55]

Oops, my bad. Although if burning flag is a First Amendment Right, then shooting a gun is a form of communication too... just a really short one.


Yep. Bullets don't travel slow.

:dance:

[Poisonshady313]

I'm anti DP too but lets be real, there haven't been hundreds of innocents executed since the reinstatement. If there were that would mean that somewhere around 20-30% of those executed were innocent. Mistakes are no where near that rampant. All told there have probably been less than 10 innocents executed and possibly less than 5. That said even one would be too many.

Besides the fact that they don't work, we shouldn't use irreversible punishments simply because of the risk of nailing an innocent with them. Bad rape convictions are much more prevalent than bad murder convictions, especially since in many rapes it comes down to he said / she said and buyers remorse. That latter term is what I call it when a woman gets drunk and horny, regrets what she did the next morning, and creates a rape fantasy in her mind to excuse her behavior. We had such a case in my town where a woman claimed she was raped by two guys at the same time. Luckily for the two guys one was kind of a sick perv of a different sort and he had a hidden video camera going in his room which caught the incident. It was very much a consensual threesome as the video proved. Without that video though it may well have went to trial and who knows what happens then. And some women just make up the rapes - think about the Duke Rape Case - those three boys would be convicted rapists right now if they hadn't come from rich families who could afford million dollar lawyers.

You live in Hempstead?

[tha malcontent™]

No, I am pretty sure most of the civilized world does not punish people with castration and would agree that it is cruel.

And when was their a case involving the constitutionality of slavery or castration? Or are you just referring to the Supreme Court and law in general? Still, it is a fallacy.

I don't Care what the Rest of the World Thinks or Feels...

A Good Chunk of them are Based in Islam, and Islam either Applauds or Sits Silent as Women are Stoned to Death because thier Masters, AKA "Husbands" Accused them of Cheating.

What I do Care about is People who Die because these People are let out of Prison or Allowed to Live.

As was Most Likely the Case in this Situation.

:)

peace...

[tha malcontent™]

bastages.

My Mother hung me on Hook once... Once. :))

:)

peace...

[gdoane]

I'm anti DP too but lets be real, there haven't been hundreds of innocents executed since the reinstatement. If there were that would mean that somewhere around 20-30% of those executed were innocent. Mistakes are no where near that rampant. All told there have probably been less than 10 innocents executed and possibly less than 5. That said even one would be too many.

If death row inmates escape, then innocent people are at risk of death too and they won't even get a trial. Death row inmates do escape, BTW. In 2005 convicted killer Charles Victor Thompson walked right out of a Harris County Jail. Embarassed, the Sheriff had to extend police protection to the Jurors and Witnesses who rightly feared for their lives. In 1998 Martin E. Gurule cut through a fence and scaled barbed wire to leave Death Row behind.

Keeping these killers alive with nothing to do but plot escapes all day and all night presents a completely unacceptable risk to the safety of the public.

Besides the fact that they don't work, we shouldn't use irreversible punishments simply because of the risk of nailing an innocent with them.

What do you mean they don't work? They have a 100% effectiveness rate in eliminating the threat posed by the condemned and a perfect recidivism rate of 0%.

Keeping them alive risks innocent people getting killed just as much as executions do. Life in prison is a lousy solution because prisoners escape jails by the hundreds every year.

Bad rape convictions are much more prevalent than bad murder convictions, especially since in many rapes it comes down to he said / she said and buyers remorse. That latter term is what I call it when a woman gets drunk and horny, regrets what she did the next morning, and creates a rape fantasy in her mind to excuse her behavior. We had such a case in my town where a woman claimed she was raped by two guys at the same time. Luckily for the two guys one was kind of a sick perv of a different sort and he had a hidden video camera going in his room which caught the incident. It was very much a consensual threesome as the video proved. Without that video though it may well have went to trial and who knows what happens then. And some women just make up the rapes - think about the Duke Rape Case - those three boys would be convicted rapists right now if they hadn't come from rich families who could afford million dollar lawyers.

The Duke case was hardly a case of angelic boys falsely accused. They were throwing wild parties and hiring strippers which made the case against them very believable. If they would have acted like properly raised adults instead of a bunch of hooligans the case wouldn't have progressed as far as it did.

I don't get these cases being held up as examples of truly innocent people getting wrongly accused like it could happen to anybody. In order to convince a jury of guilt, the prosecutor has to prove that the accused is the kind of person who would commit such a crime. Things like getting drunk, caught with drugs, sleeping around with people you've just met, associating with gangsters or other bad hombres, these tend to be things that would sway a jury away from a reasonable doubt of guilt.

The Duke Rape Case was credible because these perverts hired strippers from an escort service. If they hadn't gone and done a bad-boy thing like that, they wouldn't have gotten the bad-boy treatment.

[nortman]

My Mother hung me on Hook once... Once. :))

:)

peace...

.

[Drawz]

My Mother hung me on Hook once... Once. :))

:)

peace...

" The name's Dangerously. Johnny Dangerously." :cool:

[Clintville]

It's not punishment, it's prevention. People who were allowed to own guns under the 1st Amendment are stripped of their right to own weapons after their conviction, so then why should rapists be allowed to retain their weaponry?

Taking away someone's gun isn't cruel or unusual punishment. Taking away someone's penis is.

[Clintville]

A Good Chunk of them are Based in Islam, and Islam either Applauds or Sits Silent as Women are Stoned to Death because thier Masters, AKA "Husbands" Accused them of Cheating.

So you are with this crowd? Then why did you even bring them up?

[gdoane]

Taking away someone's gun isn't cruel or unusual punishment. Taking away someone's penis is.

It's not cruel or unusual. A Gelding is a fairly common horse and it's not considered cruelty to animals so why would it be considered cruelty to people?

[Clintville]

The Duke case was hardly a case of angelic boys falsely accused. They were throwing wild parties and hiring strippers which made the case against them very believable. If they would have acted like properly raised adults instead of a bunch of hooligans the case wouldn't have progressed as far as it did.

I don't get these cases being held up as examples of truly innocent people getting wrongly accused like it could happen to anybody. In order to convince a jury of guilt, the prosecutor has to prove that the accused is the kind of person who would commit such a crime. Things like getting drunk, caught with drugs, sleeping around with people you've just met, associating with gangsters or other bad hombres, these tend to be things that would sway a jury away from a reasonable doubt of guilt.

The Duke Rape Case was credible because these perverts hired strippers from an escort service. If they hadn't gone and done a bad-boy thing like that, they wouldn't have gotten the bad-boy treatment.
God, I hope you are never on a jury ever. The purpose of the lawyer is to prove that someone committed the crime or as close to it as possible. You should never convict someone because they seem like a bad person. Hiring strippers, getting drunk, and doing drugs (in case you didn't know, they were college kids) is not not any evidence that they would rape someone.

It was a case of people being falsely accused. Which is despicable no matter who you are doing it to (unless they raped someone else or something).

[Clintville]

It's not cruel or unusual. A Gelding is a fairly common horse and it's not considered cruelty to animals so why would it be considered cruelty to people?
Because people aren't animals (yes, I know these people are "animals"). And what happens to geldings isn't a punishment. By your "logic", castration for people should be legal, even if it isn't for punishment.

[AutoRacer55]

God, I hope you are never on a jury ever. The purpose of the lawyer is to prove that someone committed the crime or as close to it as possible. You should never convict someone because they seem like a bad person. Hiring strippers, getting drunk, and doing drugs (in case you didn't know, they were college kids) is not not any evidence that they would rape someone.

It was a case of people being falsely accused. Which is despicable no matter who you are doing it to (unless they raped someone else or something).

You want false accusations? Read about Eric Frimpong.

[gdoane]

God, I hope you are never on a jury ever.

Actually, that happens in about a month, I have Jury Duty December 1st so if you come to Phoenix you might want to keep your nose clean.

The purpose of the lawyer is to prove that someone committed the crime or as close to it as possible.

The lawyer must prove MOTIVE, OPPORTUNITY and METHOD. If the defense can disprove any of these the case won't fly.

You should never convict someone because they seem like a bad person. Hiring strippers, getting drunk, and doing drugs (in case you didn't know, they were college kids) is not not any evidence that they would rape someone.

MOTIVE, OPPORTUNITY and METHOD means that the behavior on display relates directly to MOTIVE. WHY would these kids rape a woman? Could it be because they're a bunch of drunk horny party animals who hire strippers for private parties? That does kind of point to them being sexual perverts as a possible motive for the crime at hand.

It was a case of people being falsely accused. Which is despicable no matter who you are doing it to (unless they raped someone else or something).


WHAAATTT???!!!????

Our entire Jury System operates on the PREMISE that everybody on trial is falsely accused!! Innocent before proven guilty, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that sort of thing, right? So if our system assumes, by design, that every man has been falsely accused, how can you call a false accusation a despicable thing? We assume that EVERY prosecutor is making a false accusation, don't we?

[gdoane]

Because people aren't animals (yes, I know these people are "animals"). And what happens to geldings isn't a punishment. By your "logic", castration for people should be legal, even if it isn't for punishment.

It is legal for people. That's what happens in a sex change operation. Or is that cruel and unusual too?

Actually, it'd be better than castration to make the rapist get a sex change operation... BEFORE putting him in prison.

[Clintville]

The lawyer must prove MOTIVE, OPPORTUNITY and METHOD. If the defense can disprove any of these the case won't fly.

If the lawyer cannot prove that the act did not actually happen then the case cannot fly. The guy could be a completely moral and normal person but if there is physical evidence that he raped someone then none of that should really matter too much.


MOTIVE, OPPORTUNITY and METHOD means that the behavior on display relates directly to MOTIVE. WHY would these kids rape a woman? Could it be because they're a bunch of drunk horny party animals who hire strippers for private parties? That does kind of point to them being sexual perverts as a possible motive for the crime at hand.

"Well, there isn't any physical evidence that they raped her, or that she was raped at all, but I don't know, they were horny enough to hire a stripper, so lets convict!"

Please don't tell me that is how you think.



WHAAATTT???!!!????

Our entire Jury System operates on the PREMISE that everybody on trial is falsely accused!! Innocent before proven guilty, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that sort of thing, right? So if our system assumes, by design, that every man has been falsely accused, how can you call a false accusation a despicable thing? We assume that EVERY prosecutor is making a false accusation, don't we?
:rolleyes: Really?

I meant what she did (lying about being raped and accusing innocent people of a crime to get... whatever she planned on getting) is despicable. I was not criticizing the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty. But I think you knew that.

[Clintville]

It is legal for people. That's what happens in a sex change operation. Or is that cruel and unusual too?

No, that isn't a punishment and is not against someone's will. It is unusual though.

I will assume you are smart enough to know the difference.

[DLaw911]

Our entire Jury System operates on the PREMISE that everybody on trial is falsely accused!! Innocent before proven guilty, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that sort of thing, right? So if our system assumes, by design, that every man has been falsely accused, how can you call a false accusation a despicable thing? We assume that EVERY prosecutor is making a false accusation, don't we?I rather disagree with that assertion. The so-called presumption of innocense is a jury instruction which simply puts the burden of proof on the prosection to establish guilt beyond a resonable doubt. There is no assumption of false accusation. In most cases trhe jury system works justs fine. But juries are often times influenced by passion and emotion and make decisions based on gut rather than evidence. I'm not saying they make wrong decisions but that is not the way to decide a case.

When I go to trial I tell my clients to not do or say anything to make the jury dislike them. That is 10 strikes against you.

[DLaw911]

...The lawyer must prove MOTIVE, OPPORTUNITY and METHOD. If the defense can disprove any of these the case won't fly. Motive is not an element of the offense. If the jury believes the defendant is guilty, then they have found my implication the defendant had the opportunity. Naturally if motive CAN be proven it is additional circumstantial evidence of guilt.

Here is a common rape jury instruction:
[Defendant is accused [in Count[s] ________] of having committed the crime of rape in violation of section [261, subdivision (a)(2)] [262, subdivision (a)(1)] of the Penal Code.]
Every person who engages in an act of sexual intercourse with another person who is [not] the spouse of the perpetrator accomplished against that person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury [to that person] [or] [to another person], is guilty of the crime of rape in violation of Penal Code section [261, subdivision (a)(2)] [262, subdivision (a)(1)].
Any sexual penetration, however slight, constitutes engaging in an act of sexual intercourse. [Proof of ejaculation is not required.]
"Against that person's will" means without the consent of the alleged victim.
["Menace" means any threat, declaration, or act that shows an intention to inflict an injury upon another.]
["Duress" means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which [she] [he] would not otherwise have performed, or acquiesce in an act to which [she] [he] otherwise would not have submitted. The total circumstances, including but not limited to [the age of the alleged victim,] [his or her relationship to the [perpetrator] [defendant],] [threats to harm the victim,] [physically controlling the victim when the victim attempts to resist,] [and] [warnings to the victim that revealing the perpetrator's conduct would result in jeopardizing the safety of the victim or the victim's family,] are factors to consider in appraising the existence of the duress.]
[The fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury must be actual and reasonable under the circumstances [, or if unreasonable, the perpetrator must have known of the victim's fear and taken advantage of it].]
In order to prove this crime, each of the following elements must be proved:
1. A male and female engaged in an act of sexual intercourse;
2. The two persons were [not] married to each other at the time of the act of sexual intercourse;
3. The act of intercourse was against the will of the alleged victim;

4. The act was accomplished by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury [to the alleged victim] [or] [to another person].

Also the instruction on MOTIVE

Motive is not an element of the crime charged and need not be shown. However, you may consider motive or lack of motive as a circumstance in this case. Presence of motive may tend to establish the defendant is guilty. Absence of motive may tend to show the defendant is not guilty.

[tha malcontent™]

I'm Sure "the Man" Planted ALL the Bodies they Continue to Find... :rolleyes:

This Guy should've been Shot in the Face with a Sawed-Off in 1989.

:)

peace...

[johnrocks]

I'm Sure "the Man" Planted ALL the Bodies they Continue to Find... :rolleyes:

This Guy should've been Shot in the Face with a Sawed-Off in 1989.

:)

peace...

:clap:

[gdoane]

Motive is not an element of the offense. If the jury believes the defendant is guilty, then they have found my implication the defendant had the opportunity. Naturally if motive CAN be proven it is additional circumstantial evidence of guilt.

Here is a common rape jury instruction:

There is no difference between jury instruction and jury tampering. The Court is not the masters of the jury, the court is subservient to the jury. It's RIDICULOUS that the court tells the jury what to do. Why not just tell them what their verdict will be while you're at it?

[DLaw911]

There is no difference between jury instruction and jury tampering. The Court is not the masters of the jury, the court is subservient to the jury. It's RIDICULOUS that the court tells the jury what to do. Why not just tell them what their verdict will be while you're at it?Jury instructions are the LAW the jury must apply to the FACTS as they determine them to be. A jury is not free to consult law books, libraries or newspapers or the internet to decide what the law is. To summarize the jury listens and looks at evidence and decides the facts. EACH juror is entitled to decide what the facts are. The jury is told what the law is and instructed to apply the facts to the law and, in so doing, to arrive at an individual verdict but a verdict can only be announced in court when all 12 jurors are in agreement.

[Dragon1963]

There is no difference between jury instruction and jury tampering. The Court is not the masters of the jury, the court is subservient to the jury. It's RIDICULOUS that the court tells the jury what to do. Why not just tell them what their verdict will be while you're at it?

If that's how you see jury instruction; then why not just say so when you go to jury duty. I'm sure that you'll never get placed on a jury again.

[Clintville]

I'm Sure "the Man" Planted ALL the Bodies they Continue to Find... :rolleyes:

This Guy should've been Shot in the Face with a Sawed-Off in 1989.

:)

peace...
Did somebody actually say that?

[gdoane]

Jury instructions are the LAW the jury must apply to the FACTS as they determine them to be. A jury is not free to consult law books, libraries or newspapers or the internet to decide what the law is. To summarize the jury listens and looks at evidence and decides the facts. EACH juror is entitled to decide what the facts are. The jury is told what the law is and instructed to apply the facts to the law and, in so doing, to arrive at an individual verdict but a verdict can only be announced in court when all 12 jurors are in agreement.

I'd think it should be exactly the opposite, the jurors should have total access to law books, libraries, newspapers and the internet because they should be the most informed people in the courthouse. They're jurors, not mushrooms to be kept in the dark and fed BS.

I know for a fact that it's easy as pie to surf the internet at the Maricopa County Superior Court because I know the guy who set up the public Wi-Fi there. My iPod has privileges on that network. I've surfed the web there plenty of times. Of course I'm going to bring my iPod and play on the WWW when I report for jury duty and if not my iPod then my Smartphone is just as capable of getting on the WWW as the iPod Touch is. I know those are allowed through security because they've been through security a hundred times if they've been through once.

[DLaw911]

If that's how you see jury instruction; then why not just say so when you go to jury duty. I'm sure that you'll never get placed on a jury again.Really doesn't work that way. The word "duty" in "jury duty" means you have a DUTY to apply the law as given to you to the facts as determined. It is not youjr choice to say you are not going to follow the court's instructions. In fact such a remark could constitute contempt. However, nonetheless, many judges would excuse a potential juror who claims he (or she) would be unable to put aside the law as he has been taught or that he understands it to be. And even if the jduge does not excuse for cause it's likely one of the trial attorney would exercise a peremptory challenge on that juror.

[DLaw911]

I'd think it should be exactly the opposite, the jurors should have total access to law books, libraries, newspapers and the internet because they should be the most informed people in the courthouse. They're jurors, not mushrooms to be kept in the dark and fed BS.

I know for a fact that it's easy as pie to surf the internet at the Maricopa County Superior Court because I know the guy who set up the public Wi-Fi there. My iPod has privileges on that network. I've surfed the web there plenty of times. Of course I'm going to bring my iPod and play on the WWW when I report for jury duty and if not my iPod then my Smartphone is just as capable of getting on the WWW as the iPod Touch is. I know those are allowed through security because they've been through security a hundred times if they've been through once.Jurors must make their decisions based on admittable evidence and not be influenced by outside sources. To suggest jurors can study up means they are given homework assignments. Some jurors may spend hours calling their friends asking what they should do. Others may just go to bed and not do anything.

[gdoane]

Jurors must make their decisions based on admittable evidence and not be influenced by outside sources.

The Constitution requires impartiality of Jurors in the 6th Amendment, not ignorance.

If the jury can only work off of silly admissible evidence then all the defense has to do is render all of the evidence as inadmissible and he wins.

To suggest jurors can study up means they are given homework assignments. Some jurors may spend hours calling their friends asking what they should do. Others may just go to bed and not do anything.

Yup, it's a crap shoot. That's what makes the jury system so hard to game, which was exactly the intent of the founders when they adopted it.

[Dragon1963]

Really doesn't work that way. The word "duty" in "jury duty" means you have a DUTY to apply the law as given to you to the facts as determined. It is not youjr choice to say you are not going to follow the court's instructions. In fact such a remark could constitute contempt. However, nonetheless, many judges would excuse a potential juror who claims he (or she) would be unable to put aside the law as he has been taught or that he understands it to be. And even if the jduge does not excuse for cause it's likely one of the trial attorney would exercise a peremptory challenge on that juror.

I love being on juries, but I know most of those who serve with me would rather be elsewhere and do their best to get excused.

[DLaw911]

The Constitution requires impartiality of Jurors in the 6th Amendment, not ignorance.

If the jury can only work off of silly admissible evidence then all the defense has to do is render all of the evidence as inadmissible and he wins. Easier said than done but when evidence IS suppressed it is usually for a good reason (e.g. failure to advise of Miranda, illegal search and seizure, invalid search warrant).

[DLaw911]

I love being on juries, but I know most of those who serve with me would rather be elsewhere and do their best to get excused.I've never served on a jury. As soon as I say ex-prosecutor, temporary judge, defense attorney, paralegal instructor, the attorneys on both sides are fighitng with each other as to who is going to kick me off first.