Trial by Jury

[shanek]

Sounds like doubletalk. The author of this was either drunk, tired or someone did not copy the original document very well. You can tell in certain sentences above, that there are words missing, that should be there, or, at the least, there are some s's missing after some words.

Or the fact that the language has changed somewhat in the last 200 years. We no longer use the long-s, we have a different capitalization scheme, etc.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by ShaneK
I don't think they allow attorneys to tell the jury what the possible sentences are.

I guess I was not clear in my question. Do you know why and when this came about?

CBL

 

[Kerberos]

Because without a Constitution, the only difference is the number of targets when it comes time to overthrow the tyranny.

Yeah, cause it's not as if there any difference between say UK and North Korea.

 

[shanek]

I guess I was not clear in my question. Do you know why and when this came about?

No; that's probably a good question for LegalPenguin.

 

[shanek]

Yeah, cause it's not as if there any difference between say UK and North Korea.

The UK has a Constitution, albeit an unwritten one. I don't know if North Korea does at not, but since I was specifically addressing states without Constitutions, the fact that the UK has one automatically renders your taunting with a crazy animated gif invalid; if NK has one, then even moreso.

 

[Suddenly]

No; that's probably a good question for LegalPenguin.

Sometimes, jurors are told about potential sentences. Just not usually.

The length of sentence is irrelevant to the factual determination of guilt, so there is usually no reason to bring it up.

In some circumstances, the sentencing is relevant, such as the punishment phase of a capital murder trial or anything else where sentencing is left up to the jury...

 

[Kerberos]

The UK has a Constitution, albeit an unwritten one. I don't know if North Korea does at not, but since I was specifically addressing states without Constitutions, the fact that the UK has one automatically renders your taunting with a crazy animated gif invalid; if NK has one, then even moreso.

If you include unwritten constitutions then all democratic countries (and a lot of non-democratic ones too) have one, making your statement devoid of any meaning, but hey, don't let that stop you.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
The length of sentence is irrelevant to the factual determination of guilt, so there is usually no reason to bring it up.

(I realize that you are giving legal information not forming an argument. Please excuse me if my attacking the basis for legal information feels like I am disagreeing with you. I do appreciate you providing the legal information.)

That sort of begs my original questions about why the jury is not responsible for the more of the "trial by jury" than guilt or innocent.

If I am on a jury and the prosecutor charges someone with three different type of assault which are distinguished by nebulous words, I do not think I can provide a just verdict without knowing the sentence. It boggles my mind that this part of the justice system is devised to keep the jury ignorant about laws. The reality is that most juries speculate about sentences in total igorance.

A trial by jury should be an actual trial by jury not a trial where the jury rights and responsibilities are limited and they are deliberately kept ignorant.

CBL

 

[shanek]

Sometimes, jurors are told about potential sentences. Just not usually.

The length of sentence is irrelevant to the factual determination of guilt, so there is usually no reason to bring it up.

In a straight guilty/not guilty scenario, I can see this. But many times the jurors are asked to choose between several versions of a crime, the respective sentences (which, theoretically at least, are fitting of their particular crimes) could serve as a very valuable guide.

 

[Suddenly]

(I realize that you are giving legal information not forming an argument. Please excuse me if my attacking the basis for legal information feels like I am disagreeing with you. I do appreciate you providing the legal information.)

That sort of begs my original questions about why the jury is not responsible for the more of the "trial by jury" than guilt or innocent.

If I am on a jury and the prosecutor charges someone with three different type of assault which are distinguished by nebulous words, I do not think I can provide a just verdict without knowing the sentence. It boggles my mind that this part of the justice system is devised to keep the jury ignorant about laws. The reality is that most juries speculate about sentences in total igorance.

The system is not designed to keep jurors in ignorance. It is designed to avoid confusing them with irrelevant facts, or more to the point avoid allowing lawyers to bury them with facts and argument that have nothing to do with the question of guilt.

Plus, I think the definition of "just" may really be the issue. A "just" verdict IMO is one where the jury focuses on the question put to it and decides the facts (and when relevent mixed law and fact questions) within the law and according to the evidence presented. Length of sentence has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

The time to complain about the sentencing scheme is on election day in the voting booth or at the capitol talking to ones legislators, not in the jury room... That just isn't their job (except when the legislature says it is)...

A trial by jury should be an actual trial by jury not a trial where the jury rights and responsibilities are limited and they are deliberately kept ignorant.

CBL

I think it should be a trial by jury where the jury decides whether guilt has been proven based on evidence.

 

[Suddenly]

In a straight guilty/not guilty scenario, I can see this. But many times the jurors are asked to choose between several versions of a crime, the respective sentences (which, theoretically at least, are fitting of their particular crimes) could serve as a very valuable guide.

Sometimes. Usually they are informed as to what is a felony and what is a misdemeanor, and I've usually gotten away with general explaination that the former means prison and the latter just the local jail.... Plus, the form usually sets out what is included in what.

But if the different crimes are defined adequately, it really isn't going to help to know the sentences. For the most part I suspect that would encourage compromise verdicts where jurors not convinced of guilt agree to convict for a shorter sentence... I don't like that much.

 

[shanek]

The system is not designed to keep jurors in ignorance. It is designed to avoid confusing them with irrelevant facts, or more to the point avoid allowing lawyers to bury them with facts and argument that have nothing to do with the question of guilt. [/b]

It's also so that police and prosecutors don't benefit from evidence obtained unconstitutionally.

 

[Tony]

I think it should be a trial by jury where the jury decides whether guilt has been proven based on evidence.

I don't see how that needs to negate jury nullification.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by LegalPenguin
Plus, I think the definition of "just" may really be the issue. A "just" verdict IMO is one where the jury focuses on the question put to it and decides the facts (and when relevent mixed law and fact questions) within the law and according to the evidence presented. Length of sentence has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

I agree with all your statement but I interpret them in a different way.

The jury should concentrate on the questions put to it but this should include the "justness" and constitutionality of the law and the sentence. The evidence in some cases, should include the constitutionality of the law and whether the sentence is "cruel or unusual."

California's three strikes law resulted in life sentence in the theft of a few videos. If I had been sitting on that jury, I would forever feel that I had been used and abused by the (in)justice system to perpetuate a major felony against a petty crook. Given the facts, I can almost guarantee that there would have been a unanimous not guilty finding as the lesser injustice.

People foolishly vote for referendums without understanding the true impact. Juries should be able to prevent great miscarriages of justice.

CBL