This is why we need the death penalty...

[Seth]

It's not about the addict, I don't care what you put in your body, it's about the murders to facilitate the manufacture, transport and distribution of the drugs that concerns me.

Murder may or may not be a suitable justification for the death penalty, sure.

Me, I'd prefer jailing them in Supermax for the rest of their natural days ... "how the mighty have fallen" and all that.

Now, in the Mexican system, killing them is likely the safest bet for keeping them from killing more, but it's a kindness I don't think the state should extend, generally, given secure confinement.

There is no such thing as "secure confinement" outside of the grave, which is the whole point of the thread. Besides, I have no interest in paying for someone like that to live in air-conditioned comfort while he runs his cartel by smuggled-in cell phone while waiting for the tunnel to be completed again.

[Blind groper]

As I have told you half a dozen times, Seth, at least in the USA, it costs you as a taxpayer, two and a half times as much to execute someone compared to locking him up for life. So you should be opposed to the death penalty just as an economy measure.

[Seth]

As I have told you half a dozen times, Seth, at least in the USA, it costs you as a taxpayer, two and a half times as much to execute someone compared to locking him up for life. So you should be opposed to the death penalty just as an economy measure.

I don't care about the cost of killing him, I care about the cost, and the inevitable danger of keeping him alive. He escaped (for the second time) from a Mexican "maximum security" prison not by guile or stealth but by bribery, intimidation and likely threatening to have entire families murdered if prison personnel didn't look the other way.

If he's dead, he can't do that, can he?

[Blind groper]

As I said, Seth, just send him here to NZ, with a big enough fee to cover his costs. We will lock him up for the next 40 years. Since we are not as corrupt as Mexicans, he will stay locked up.

We will do almost anything for enough money. Even take care of total trash.

Actually, I have often thought that there needs to be more international cooperation with regard to the judiciary and the prison system. For example, where it is impossible to get an impartial jury in one country, get that person tried in an allied nation. If your worst criminals are tried in NZ, we would have an impartial jury, and you could return the favor. Similarly, if your crooks cannot be locked up away from their criminal friends, send 'em here, and we will lock them up with our toughest gang members. And you can do the same for some of our toughest crims.

[Seth]

As I said, Seth, just send him here to NZ, with a big enough fee to cover his costs. We will lock him up for the next 40 years. Since we are not as corrupt as Mexicans, he will stay locked up.

You can't guarantee that, and therein lies the problem.

We will do almost anything for enough money.

So....You're a nation of whores. I see.

Even take care of total trash.

You take care of trash by burying it somewhere, or perhaps by burning it.

Actually, I have often thought that there needs to be more international cooperation with regard to the judiciary and the prison system. For example, where it is impossible to get an impartial jury in one country, get that person tried in an allied nation. If your worst criminals are tried in NZ, we would have an impartial jury, and you could return the favor. Similarly, if your crooks cannot be locked up away from their criminal friends, send 'em here, and we will lock them up with our toughest gang members. And you can do the same for some of our toughest crims.

One is entitled to a jury of one's peers, which means the people of one's community, who are best situated to know you and your character and who therefore are most likely to judge you fairly.

[Blind groper]

As one who has served twice on juries, I disagree with that latter comment. It is not how 'fairly' a jury treats you that is important. It is how good they are at weighing evidence.

A person who is guilty of a crime should be found guilty on the basis of evidence. A jury going easy on someone because he or she is the same kind of person, and they understand him/her, is exactly wrong.

[Seth]

As one who has served twice on juries, I disagree with that latter comment. It is not how 'fairly' a jury treats you that is important. It is how good they are at weighing evidence.

A person who is guilty of a crime should be found guilty on the basis of evidence. A jury going easy on someone because he or she is the same kind of person, and they understand him/her, is exactly wrong.

And yet the concept of jury nullification goes far back in history, long before the US existed. The concept of jury nullification is that in the case of an unjust prosecution, or a prosecution based on an unjust law, the jury, of one's peers, has the ultimate and plenary power to acquit based on ALL of the evidence, not just that which the prosecution or judge wishes the jury to hear or see. This can include evidence obvious to the jury of prosecutor or judicial misconduct.

The right of a jury to acquit even in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt, which may of course be manufactured (one need only watch "The Crucible" for proof of this) or manipulated is absolute in the US. Although judges and prosecutors do their level best to prevent this from becoming known to jurors and judges will dismiss jurors or declare a mistrial sometimes when it's discovered that a juror refuses to convict based on jury nullification, it remains valid and constitutional for a jury to acquit even in the face of absolute proof of guilt.

And that is why one is supposed to be entitled to a jury of ones peers rather than a jury made of of the stupidest and most ignorant 12 people in the community who are the most gullible and manipulable by the prosecution.

If the police, prosecutor and judge conspire to convict a particular citizen based on false evidence and testimony, a jury of the community, of his peers, who know him and know that he would never do such a thing and that he's being set up for political or other reasons, it can acquit him and end the wrong being perpetrated.

You're naive if you think that police, prosecutors and judges are perfect models of justice and that they never abuse their power to harm innocent persons.

Jury nullification is the last bastion of justice when everything else fails.

[mistermack]

You say all that as if it's a good thing.

Juries acquitting people like OJ Simpson is definitely NOT a good thing.
A dead woman got no justice and her killer got away with murder, because of what you are admiring.

[Thumpalumpacus]

There is no such thing as "secure confinement" outside of the grave, which is the whole point of the thread. Besides, I have no interest in paying for someone like that to live in air-conditioned comfort while he runs his cartel by smuggled-in cell phone while waiting for the tunnel to be completed again.

We'll disagree.

[Seth]

You say all that as if it's a good thing.

Juries acquitting people like OJ Simpson is definitely NOT a good thing.
A dead woman got no justice and her killer got away with murder, because of what you are admiring.

The prosecutor failed to meet his burden of proof so the jury could not find him guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. That's what's supposed to happen.

How do you reconcile your certainty of OJ's guilt with the judgement of the jury? And how do you reconcile your objection to jury nullification with Anne Boleyn?

[Blind groper]

There is little doubt about OJ's guilt. There is also little doubt that the selection of his jury made his acquittal happen.

The law is supposed to be dispassionate. If you look at the statue of the justice goddess "Justicia" above the Old Bailey in London, you will see that she is wearing a blind fold. That blind fold represents blindness to emotional logic. Justice should be based on hard data, and solid evidence. Once emotion enters the process, we have injustice - either to an innocent accused, or to the victims of a criminal. We need to keep emotion out of judicial decision making.

[Seth]

There is little doubt about OJ's guilt.

There was enough doubt foe 12 people to refuse to convict him. What makes your judgment superior to theirs?

There is also little doubt that the selection of his jury made his acquittal happen.

And therein lies my point.

The law is supposed to be dispassionate. If you look at the statue of the justice goddess "Justicia" above the Old Bailey in London, you will see that she is wearing a blind fold. That blind fold represents blindness to emotional logic. Justice should be based on hard data, and solid evidence. Once emotion enters the process, we have injustice - either to an innocent accused, or to the victims of a criminal. We need to keep emotion out of judicial decision making.

The law is supposed to be dispassionate. The jury is supposed to be just. If the law is all that matters then we don't need juries, a technical analysis of the evidence is all that's required. And that's why Iranians throw gays off rooftops and stone them to death. That's why Anne Boleyn got shortened.

Justice involves things like compassion and forgiveness which are human traits you are evidently unaware of.

[Blind groper]

Actually compassion and other soft emotions are not part of a jury's job. The jury is simply there to determine guilt or innocence and that comes from a dispassionate, objective, and hopefully intelligent assessment of the evidence.

I am not, actually, in favor of the current system. To choose 12 people almost at random and hope they will do a professional job is naive in the extreme. I am a believer in expertise. If I need my drains cleaned, I do not hire a dentist. I hire a plumber. To perform any job properly and well requires training, expertise, education, and experience. The jury system does not supply these.

If compassion and empathy are needed, that is the sentencing judge's task. The jury merely needs to determine guilt or innocence, and as OJ showed, they do not even do that properly.

[mistermack]

You say all that as if it's a good thing.

Juries acquitting people like OJ Simpson is definitely NOT a good thing.
A dead woman got no justice and her killer got away with murder, because of what you are admiring.

The prosecutor failed to meet his burden of proof so the jury could not find him guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. That's what's supposed to happen.

How do you reconcile your certainty of OJ's guilt with the judgement of the jury? And how do you reconcile your objection to jury nullification with Anne Boleyn?

I have no doubt whatsoever, that the jury knew perfectly well that OJ killed his wife.
None whatsoever.
But as they were cleverly induced to take a dislike to the police investigation, and the racist recent actions of the police, both in beating the shit out of Rodney someone, and then acquitting themselves of any wrongdoing, they decided to do exactly what you suggested was a good thing, and bring in a perverse verdict.

Maybe the police needed a kick up the arse. Well, not maybe, definitely.
But to acquit a murderer, as a protest, just shows that groper's point is well made.
Americans should not be allowed to sit in juries. They are too fuckin stupid and ignorant.
As a group.
Maybe if they had to pass an exam and a responsibility test, to filter out the morons, it might work, but I doubt it.
If OJ had been tried in New Zealand, as grouper suggested, I'm sure proper justice would have been done.

[Seth]

Actually compassion and other soft emotions are not part of a jury's job. The jury is simply there to determine guilt or innocence and that comes from a dispassionate, objective, and hopefully intelligent assessment of the evidence.

Nope, the jury is there to ensure a just verdict. Prosecutors would like you to believe that jurors are only supposed to be analytical and decide based on the evidence alone but that is a lie perpetrated by judges and prosecutors.

I am not, actually, in favor of the current system. To choose 12 people almost at random and hope they will do a professional job is naive in the extreme. I am a believer in expertise. If I need my drains cleaned, I do not hire a dentist. I hire a plumber. To perform any job properly and well requires training, expertise, education, and experience. The jury system does not supply these.

That's precisely why we use jurors. They are NOT supposed to be experts. In fact experts are usually kept off juries, as are lawyers and law enforcement professionals. Jurors are supposed to be the defendants peers who can put themselves in the same place and will therefore judge the defendant based on their knowledge and understanding of the defendant, the law, and the need for a just verdict.

The 85 year old who shoots his suffering-in-untreatable-agony wife of 65 years commits murder but a jury can judge the individual circumstances and the application of the law in that specific case and decide to acquit him out of compassion and justice, whereas sending him to prison would serve no purpose and do nothing to protect the public.

If compassion and empathy are needed, that is the sentencing judge's task. The jury merely needs to determine guilt or innocence, and as OJ showed, they do not even do that properly.

With mandatory sentences that is all too often impossible and the only avenue for a just result is jury nullification.