Reading Current Events

Jun 16, 2006 18:45 # 43067

havananights ** posts about...

If YOU were a JUROR in a trial

?% | 1

You happen to be a juror in a high profile SERIAL MURDER case, with a shocking 70+ "victims". This moment in time results in media frenzy with talks of high ticket movie proposals and book deals galore. The O'Reilly Factor, Colbert Report and other new age, against the grain, news informants invite huge heated debates with former high profile case lawyers and get this; interviews with the victims, victims. Yes, this case has a twist. In short; everything involving this case is elevated.

The "An Eye for an Eye" serial killer murder trial is wrapping up and closing arguments by each "defender" of truth attorneys stamp their final indention to an absolutely riveting case. Now time for jury deliberations, the media labeling this moment as the "Audience of The World is watching”.

The accused is a supposed serial killer, whose victims were all pedophiles/child molesters. Throughout the trial, the defense call many victims of the accused "An Eye for an Eye" victims to stand. They speak with genuine emotion recalling childhood accounts so heartbreaking it gripped the nation. Until now, some individuals never spoke of such events, instead they tucked away the pain in years of shame and secreticy. The Nation watched.

This trial is like a magnifying glass to everyone. Mass media reports show that this current trial quadruples the total record set during the O.J. Simpson case, with an eye popping 1,000,000 new tuning in audience during the closing arguments!

You are the juror. Where would you stand?

As history shows us, it has always been Aces over Kings

This post was edited by havananights on Jun 16, 2006.

Jun 16, 2006 20:42 # 43071

cyborg *** replies...

Re: If YOU were a JUROR in a trial

I would perform my duty as a juror - which I assume is fairly uniform from country to country. Namely to judge on the *facts* of the actual case in hand irrelevent of any emotional concerns.

Pandering to the circus isn't going to improve justice.

Jun 16, 2006 22:36 # 43073

havananights ** replies...

Re: If YOU were a JUROR in a trial

So, to answer my original question....Where would you stand? I'm not talking about; 'Pandering to the circus'. Actually, I don't really understand that statement in regards to this post. Are you expressing your opinion on how the media weaves stories? I am writing a hypothetical scenario question. It's pretty cut and dry, a serial killer whose victims were child molesters. His defense brings people who were molested by some of his victims. My question is really what you make it, with me I don't know. Could I condemn someone who cleaned up some of the filth?

As history shows us, it has always been Aces over Kings

This post was edited by havananights on Jun 16, 2006.

Jun 17, 2006 00:13 # 43078

cyborg *** replies...

Re: If YOU were a JUROR in a trial

?% | 2

I'm not talking about; 'Pandering to the circus'.

That's exactly what you're talking about. You describe a circus of justice.

a serial killer whose victims were child molesters.

So? Are child molesters a special catergory of criminal for whom suddenly all sense of a regimented system of justice just flies out the window?

His defense brings people who were molested by some of his victims.

Sounds like a goddamn circus to me.

My question is really what you make it, with me I don't know.

For me it's quite simple.

Could I condemn someone who cleaned up some of the filth?

Yes. We do not allow people to go around arbitarially metering out 'justice' as they see fit for a good reason; it leads to anarchy.

You try a case on the law and nothing else. Mob justice is insanity. You allow people to go around on witchhunts and you're going to get a lot of innocent people caught up in the crossfire.

Who his victims were is irrelevent. He had no authourity to kill anyone.

Jun 17, 2006 22:10 # 43081

havananights ** replies...

Re: If YOU were a JUROR in a trial

?% | 1

I wrote up a hypothetical question with detail and I have the ultimate bulldozer of a poster response. If you want to pick apart my question, go for it my fellow poster.

I still cannot understand why you consider the defense bringing people to the stand who were victims of molestation as "pandering to the circus". Making it even more difficult for the jury, yes. Pandering to the circus, no. I consider it BUILDING their case.

Oh and yes, in my opinion I see child molesters less of human beings, so I will answer my original question. If I was a juror, I would find it morally difficult to sentence someone to death if their crime was what I spelled out. Mob mentality? No. Street justice my friend, I'm not talking about a witch-hunt or anarchy. Witch-hunts usually include individuals who have no idea what is going on, they just want to see violence or a downfall. They are followers who cannot stand alone.

Put yourself in a parents shoes and your child has been molested, top it off with the justice system letting you down by releasing the molester. I doubt you would find that pandering to the circus or mob insanity or anarchy on your part. If your child happened to be the victim, I find it difficult to believe that you would follow your same views you "politically" cloud answered.

Maybe you would though.

As history shows us, it has always been Aces over Kings

This post was edited by havananights on Jun 17, 2006.

Jun 17, 2006 22:36 # 43083

cyborg *** replies...

Re: If YOU were a JUROR in a trial

?% | 2

I wrote up a hypothetical question with detail and I have the ultimate bulldozer of a poster response.

I'll take that as a compliment.

I still cannot understand why you consider the defense bringing people to the stand who were victims of molestation as "pandering to the circus"

Quite simply because it's irrelevent.

It's the same sort of shit that is pulled when the defense lwayer for a rapist attacks the sexual history of the female victim.

It doesn't change the *FACTS*.

Oh and yes, in my opinion I see child molesters less of human beings

And what of other criminals?

I would find it morally difficult to sentence someone to death if their crime was what I spelled out

Then perhaps you should take it upon yourself to start executing the undesirables of society?

Mob mentality? No. Street justice my friend,

That is the same difference.

I'm not talking about a witch-hunt or anarchy.

When you talk about taking the implementation of justice and placing it outside of the systems of justice that is precisely what you advocate.

Witch-hunts usually include individuals who have no idea what is going on, they just want to see violence or a downfall.

Have you actually seen how people react to the fear of paederests? There is no sense of a desire for justice, just enough blood to sate the mob and convince them they can change the universe.

Put yourself in a parents shoes and your child has been molested, top it off with the justice system letting you down by releasing the molester.

Well I couldn't see THAT argument coming a mile off.

Would I be anrgy about the failure of the justice system? Sure! But I am not about to become an uncivilised barbarian because of it. I *DO NOT* make such decisions based on emotional reactions so your appeals to emotion are wasted on me.

You can single out child molestation as some special crime above all others if you wish. You can ask me, "what if it happened to you?" questions all day. It won't change my answer, and it won't change my answer because I am an advocate of logic.

Go ahead, give me some logical arguments that don't rely on using all the fallacies in the book at once.

Jun 18, 2006 01:27 # 43084

havananights ** replies...

Re: If YOU were a JUROR in a trial

26% | 3

You know what I could see coming a mile away: Your smart ass, narrow minded comments. Boy o boy that humdinger was obvious from the start.

Thanks for showing me the other side of Netalive; you know the obnoxious, claim to be without emotion, dry skin from someone's ass crack, type of asshole. Personally, I wish out of any of the other posts, you wouldn't have chosen mine to show how pompous and truly ignorant your arrogance happens to be. Oh wait, that was emotion spilling out, something you claim not to act upon.

Guess you won. Ah, oh well at least I don't have to hide behind my monitor typing big words with every pleasurable intention of ripping a post apart. You know, at least you're predictable; can't say I've read anything diverse from you in ANY of your previous Netalive posts. You seem to only possess the intelligence to reply to posts and not the originality to create one. Thumbs up for staying true to who you are...You go buddy.

As history shows us, it has always been Aces over Kings

Jun 18, 2006 05:04 # 43090

MelMel *** replies...

Re: If YOU were a JUROR in a trial

Hey, let's all calm down. I watched this thread get gradually more and more hostile, yet it is my belief that neither of you intended it to be so. You both have strong beliefs which is fantastic, however you need to view opposing beliefs while taking a step back. Let's ignre all those little snippy comments that have led up to this and get back to the original discussion, which in my opinion is a very good question.

My mother and i debate about this sort of thing quite often. She believes that criminals like this should be killed. We don't have the death penalty here, but she would like it brought back for some cases, like this example. I however just cannot justify the taking of a life. I believe that a person can reform and offer a postive contribution to society. However, they should be punished. What they did was absolutly unforgivable and they are a danger to society if let free in many cases. Locking people will protect the public, but it will not solve the problem. I don't know what the right answer is, but i do think more research needs to go into rehabilitation programs. But even if a person was rehabilitated, i dont think they should get their freedom back. Freedom is the price that they should pay for what they've done. It's the same with a naughty child who misbehaves, the thing they lose is freedom. I'm rambling now, as i say, i'm yet to reach a decision about what i think i should be done... But i personally do not think that killing someone is acceptable.

-Mel

Look at me! I'm a prostitute robot from the future!

Jun 18, 2006 20:34 # 43096

havananights ** replies...

Re: If YOU were a JUROR in a trial

?% | 1

Thank you MelMel. Having a discussion on this type of issue was my idea from the start. All I wanted to do was learn from other Netalivers on what their belief happened to be regarding this particular issue.

I understand the "vigilante" style my post presents. I also believe that people involved with a case like this would be torn between what our laws require and what they feel may be justice in a weird twisted way. I mean do you think that these victims and their family members plus many others would secretly applaud something like this? Or do you think they would raise their fingers with a shame on this guy additude?

I don't know what the right answer is

Really there isn't one. Who's to say any of us are right. What is the right thing to do when dealing with molesters? Studies show that pedophiles cannot be rehabilitated. Now what does that have to say about our justice system? We do tend to just throw the convicted into prison with a "fix their self" mentality.

As history shows us, it has always been Aces over Kings

Jun 18, 2006 08:50 # 43091

cyborg *** replies...

Re: If YOU were a JUROR in a trial

?% | 1

Guess you won.

Well since you seem to be unable to actually respond to the posts and instead think you're served better by engaging in character assassination I'd concur.

Jun 18, 2006 20:18 # 43095

havananights ** replies...

Re: If YOU were a JUROR in a trial

Bravo for the continuation. You and these little tag lines; character assassination. Whatever buddy, I've attempted to reply to your posts and find out where you stand as an individual, however your intentions are to rile up the poster with your smart ass replies. Your post history shows what your motives are here. Hopefully these replies you consistently post, boost your incredibly low self-esteem.

As history shows us, it has always been Aces over Kings

Jun 18, 2006 21:37 # 43097

cyborg *** replies...

Re: If YOU were a JUROR in a trial

?% | 2

Whatever buddy, I've attempted to reply to your posts and find out where you stand as an individual, however your intentions are to rile up the poster with your smart ass replies.

I've been perfectly forthcoming in my arguments. You are proposing that vigilantism is fine as long as you are upset enough by the crime. I am pointing out that endorsing circumvention of the legal system benefits no-one in the long run.

If that's smart ass then I'm a smart ass.

Your post history shows what your motives are here.

Well if you think that attempting to pull apart weak arguments is a motive rather than just something someone should do in a debate then that's my motive I suppose.

Hopefully these replies you consistently post, boost your incredibly low self-esteem.

They do thanks.

Now, perhaps you could respond on topic - that is if you have anything to actually say?

Jun 19, 2006 05:53 # 43098

Bunk *** is getting sarcastic...

Re: If YOU were a JUROR in a trial

Boy, do I love NAO fights. The only thing wrong is they can never come to blows. To make up for this fallacy, both of you should go break something, or at the very least smack it hard (nothing that's alive, please).

"History is more or less bunk." - Henry Ford

Jun 20, 2006 04:57 # 43108

betty *** replies...

Re: If YOU were a JUROR in a trial

72% | 2

I just noticed this topic, so excuse me if I'm a bit late...

You are the juror. Where would you stand?

The crime of the serial killer is on trial, not the crime of the victims. As a juror, it would be my responsibility to determine whether the serial killer was guilty of the crimes of which he was accused, not the 'value' of the killings.

In a high profile case such as this one, the jury would most likely be sequestered and not exposed to the media frenzy that follows the trial.

It may be possible that a few victims(1) victims'(2) might be allowed to testify, but only to establish a typography of the victims'(1) characters.

As a carefully screened and selected jury, how we would vote would be determined by the evidence that is presented during the case, not how we "feel" about certain conditions of the case.

Many people, myself included, would consider that vigilantism on this scale is beyond relevance of whether it was "justified" or not. At some point the killer had to lose a certain level of humanity in order to consider these killings justified.

I am just me, searching for simplicity.........and a good hair stylist

This post was edited by betty on Jun 20, 2006.


Small text Large text

Netalive Amp (Skin for Winamp)