Quote:
Originally Posted by John Doe
I don't necessarily think it is useless. I just meant it would probably degenerate iinto a bunch of cliche one-liners from anti and pro death penalty bandwagoneers (which it has). Several people reading this thread may have daughters and haven't been following the Lunsford case as we (I) have. If one of those people changes their minds on the dp for child killers or keeps a closer watch on his child as a result of being informed of Jessica and Couey's fate--the thread will have not been useless  |
It is useless because those who are opposed to the DP are, for the most part, "true believers" who will not change their minds no matter what.
Notice MTI's repsonse to my question:
"Assuming, arguendo, that we could design a system that is 100% fail-safe in that it guarantees that people convicted of a capital offense are rightfully convicted, would you still oppose the DP?"
He wouldn't give a straight answer to the question (not that I expected him to). Instead, he went off on some tangent about how our system is not color-blind. I have probably tried more jury trials than most of the lawyers here. (Not bragging, it is just a function of my chosen professional track).
Except for the bizarre instances, like in the OJ trial, where the jury refused to convict OJ (in spite of all the DNA and blood evidecne) because the nearly all-black jury had an ax to grind against the white man; I think that most jurors ar fair enough, and intelligent enough, to guarantee a good result. And then, on top of that, there is the entire appellate process. So even if the jury screws up and even if the prosecutor screws up and even if the trial judge screws up and even if the defnese attorney screws up, there is a whole new layer of scrutiny.
In fact, let me go one step further (as long as I am riding this pony). If there is any racism in modern-day American trials it is black against white and not the other way around. I firmly believe that present-day white jurors tend to be fairier towards black defendants than black jurors are towards white defendants. White carry all that heavy burden of "white guilt" over the perceived sins of their forefathers. So white jurors bend over backwards to be fair and impartial. Black jurors don't give white defendants the same consideration, In fact, many black jurors tend to give a free pass to black defendants. The OJ trial is only one instance.
Just look at the news. While society has roundly condemned the actions of QB Michael Vick, blacks in Atlanta, together with the Atlanta NAACP, have made it a point of bending over backwards to express support for him. They all get on TV and hide behind the "presumption of innocence" argument and spout things like "he (Vick) is innocent until proven guilty." (Incidentally, that statement is incorrect. A defendant is "
presumed innocent until proven guilty." He is IS NOT innocent until proven guilty. It is plain stupid to say that a person IS innocent until proven guilty. At trial you are either guilty or innocent of the crime that you are accused of. The trial starts with the
presuumption of innocence and not with the "status" of innocence. It is up to the prosecutor to bring out sufficient evidence to establish the defendant's guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt--thanks Botnst for poinitng this out. That is a big difference that most people fail to grasp. )
Where were those same NAACP leaders, and other members of the black community, when the Duke lacrosse players were being pilloried by the press in general, and by the black community in specific. But I digress.
I guess that is a roundabout way of saying that the thread is useless because the opponents of the DP have their agenda which has nothing to do with fairness and truth. That's the way it is and that is the way it shall remain.
Perhaps I have been spoiled by California's legal system. But as far as I am concerned, and as far as I have seen, the system here is as color blind as you can get--except when black jurors sit in judgment of people like OJ.
Dee8go, you have mentioned Grisham's book in other occasions. I am going to have to read it. Then I can opine on the merits of his research and the validity of his conclusions. Until then, I remain highly skeptical of anything that comes out of his pen.
OK, I am off the pony now.