|
 ScavengerType
 
Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
 Re: Supremes get it right  [Re: Stonehenge]
#10148097 - 04/11/09 02:08 PM (15 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
why the fuck not, there are plenty of reasons that it could lead to a racist ruling.
--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club
|
 johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Supremes get it right [Re: Stonehenge]
#10148109 - 04/11/09 02:13 PM (15 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
1. Like Redstorm said, nobody was arguing to free him or whatever.
Here;s a fun fact: this was an appeal of an order partly denying habeas corpus. That would only void the trial, not the indictment.
Therefore, even if he suceeded in toto he would not be "freed" as you say but rather held on his original indictment and retried. He'd never see a day out of jail unless the PA courts wanted to grant him bond on a capital murder case (bond which could have been, in theory, granted to him all along but wasn't, cuz its a capital murder case).
This is why your "freed" rhetoric is silly. There is no chance of that happening from this appeal. He would be given another trial, which he would presumably be convicted on given the strength of the evidence and could be put to death, to my knowledge,- a fate he doesn't face right now.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 6 days
|
Re: Supremes get it right [Re: johnm214]
#10148139 - 04/11/09 02:20 PM (15 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
> I would object to a white guy being tried by an all minority jury.
Why? Not everybody, minority or not, is racist.
> Did it ever occur to you that certain groups commit more crimes?
I think it has less to do with racial groups and more to do with geography, poverty, and culture.
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
ScavengerType
Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: Supremes get it right [Re: Seuss]
#10148329 - 04/11/09 03:20 PM (15 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
perhaps but in the context of the mumia case where the jury was apparently selected to remove blacks I would object to the exact same treatment to a white man. You think poor blacks and hispanics would give a white, white collar criminal a fair trial?
--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 6 days
|
|
> You think poor blacks and hispanics would give a white, white collar criminal a fair trial?
Yes.
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 5 months, 27 days
|
Re: Supremes get it right [Re: johnm214]
#10148500 - 04/11/09 04:08 PM (15 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
1. Like Redstorm said, nobody was arguing to free him or whatever.
Here;s a fun fact: this was an appeal of an order partly denying habeas corpus. That would only void the trial, not the indictment.
Therefore, even if he suceeded in toto he would not be "freed" as you say but rather held on his original indictment and retried. He'd never see a day out of jail unless the PA courts wanted to grant him bond on a capital murder case (bond which could have been, in theory, granted to him all along but wasn't, cuz its a capital murder case).
This is why your "freed" rhetoric is silly. There is no chance of that happening from this appeal. He would be given another trial, which he would presumably be convicted on given the strength of the evidence and could be put to death, to my knowledge,- a fate he doesn't face right now.
Thank you.
Stonehenge, I would love to see where your information that says he would be freed if the ruling landed on his favor comes from.
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center
Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
Re: Supremes get it right [Re: Redstorm]
#10149100 - 04/11/09 07:06 PM (15 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Red, I said the people who wanted him free were trying to put a murderer back on the streets. I didn't say he would have walked right away even if he won this ruling. But it would have been a terrible ruling just the same. Have you never heard of the "free mumia" movement?
--------------------
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835)
Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
ScavengerType
Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: Supremes get it right [Re: Stonehenge]
#10149145 - 04/11/09 07:18 PM (15 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
we've heard of it, but I don't see why this man was denied a right to a trial under a jury that was free of preferential selection.
Seuss says it probibly had more to do with economic class than with color. That's even worse, rich people love cops much more than poor people, frankly I thought that class was at the subtext of this thing too. However, I doubt the SCOTUS sees class as much as they see race.
--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Supremes get it right [Re: Stonehenge]
#10149186 - 04/11/09 07:31 PM (15 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stonehenge said:
Red, I said the people who wanted him free were trying to put a murderer back on the streets. I didn't say he would have walked right away even if he won this ruling. But it would have been a terrible ruling just the same. Have you never heard of the "free mumia" movement?
So when you replied to posters in this thread with criticisms of the case and the other posters you were really addressing the free mumia movement?
If you are attacking the free mumia movement I don't know why your replying to people in this thread who've not identified themselves as wanting mumia freed with comments criticizing a desire to have him freed. Its not a possible outcome of the case and has nothing to do with whether the decision of the supreme court was good or bad- which the original post claims without support as well.
The only people I see posting here are folks that are concerned about the effects of very real racial discrimination on trials and jury selection. It certain exists, the practicalities are all that can be really questioned- how to identify it, how to remedy it.
Additionally I'd like to remind others here that it isn't solely the defendant who is loosing when people are discriminated against in jury selection. The defendant has a right to a jury of his peers, yes, but the potential jurors have a right to serve as well- and not be disriminated against illegaly.
I would rightly feel my rights were infringed upon if I was excluded by a prosecutor, a government agent, on the basis of my race with a dismissive slur. I don't have a right to serve, but I do have a right to be fairly considered for one of the most important civic duties in our government.
(I still wonder whether giving premptory strikes to lawyers improves justice and would like to see some evidence that this is the case. The law often just does things for reasons that are clear but not justified.)
|
ScavengerType
Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: Supremes get it right [Re: johnm214]
#10149391 - 04/11/09 08:29 PM (15 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Johnm, I thought you said some of the details of the case were sketchy? If this were true a retrial could result in a release if he was found not-guilty.
--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
|
Yeah, if he's found not guilty he'd go free, but I don't think its likely. My earlier comment was referring to a comment the prosecutor made and the way the death/no death verdict form was written. They don't effect the fairness of the guilty determination, only the death verdict. They are just unfair and overrepresented in appellate cases and its hard to imagine they are innocent mistakes given how simple the issue is, rather than seriously ignorant prosecutor/judges or worse.
From my limited understanding of the case, to which I'd defer to someone more educated in it, there were only two people in the immediate vicinity of the officer, one being mumia. Several people say they saw mumia shoot the cop and the cop undisputably shot mumia. I just don't see how the man could be found not guilty, and based on what I know, I'd vote to convict him. As an aside, there seems to be pretty much no excuse for the shooting. I support freeing guys who shot cops coming in their home, especially violently, without identifying themselves, but there's nothing like that here- seems totally indefensible.
Here's my take on some of the problems in this case to which I refered to earlier, that were appealed upon. Sorry for the length, hopefully some will find it interesting exactly what was said/read to the jury and why I think that was problematic:
What I meant regarding the bullshit in this case is comments by the prosecutor like:
Quote:
“of course
there would be appeal after appeal and perhaps there could be a
reversal of the case, or whatever, so that may not be final.”
in his closing arguments during the death phase of the trial. The prosecutor is asking the jury to send this man to die and is then telling them "its no big deal, it may be reversed anyways and other courts will look at it" which is ridiculous.
First the public allready overestimates the amount of cases reversed and this comment only encourages them to shirk their responsibility to determine if he dies, second teh prosecutor is implying that their ruling would be reviewed. This is total bullshit- it would not be reviewed by any court on appeal unless their decision was based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, which is an impossible standard and only applies when there is literally nothing that their decision could have been based upon. They alone have the authority to determine if he should die (is eligible). Any review is over legal decisions and wouldn't touch their factual findings in weighing the factors favoring death vs not (their opinion is considered a factual issue).
I just think this is a good example of the crap that prosecutors do. They try and push the line and make the jury think its not their decision or lighten the seriousness of their decision with false suggestions that it will be reviewed when it won't and cannot.
The other things include bullshit forms- another area that has had way too many appeals devoted to it. Basically I just find it inexcusable that a judge is letting shit like this go on when the law is so very clear and so much has been made of the issue.
The forms the jury filled out recording their death recomendation suggest they can only not find for death if they agree unanimously as to the mitigating factor- which is unconstitutional.
If they all agree a mitigating factor is present but don't agree on which one it is (which can be anything at all the jury wants, so the risk of them not agreeing what to call the factor is very real) the form suggests they cannot enter a verdict for life.
Here's what the form said as to the life part:
Quote:
(2) (To be used only if the aforesaid sentence is death)
We, the jury, have found unanimously
[ ] at least one aggravating circumstance and
no mitigating circumstance. The
aggravating circumstance(s) is/are
_________________________________
________.
[X] one or more aggravating circumstances
which outweigh any mitigating
circumstances. The aggravating
circumstance(s) is/are ___________ A
______________.
The mitigating circumstance(s) is/are
______ A _______.
[Then there was two more pages that had no instructions but allowed the listing of mitigating factors and agravating factors. Following that was:]
The jury charge here recited, in part:
Members of the jury, you must now decide
whether the defendant is to be sentenced to death
or life imprisonment. The sentence will depend
upon your findings concerning aggravating and
mitigating circumstances.
The Crimes Code
provides that a verdict must be a sentence of death
if the jury unanimously finds at least one
aggravating circumstance and no mitigating
circumstance, or if the jury unanimously finds one
or more aggravating circumstances which
outweigh any mitigating circumstances.
The verdict must be a sentence of life
imprisonment in all other cases . . . . The
Commonwealth has the burden of proving
aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable
doubt. The defendant has the burden of proving
mitigating circumstances, but only by a
preponderance of the evidence.
This is a lesser
burden of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt.
A preponderance of the evidence exists where one
side is more believable than the other side . . . .
Now, the verdict is for you, members of
the jury. Remember and consider all of the
evidence giving it the weight to which it is
entitled. Remember that you are not merely
recommending a punishment. The verdict you
return will actually fix the punishment at death or
life imprisonment.
Remember again that your
verdict must be unanimous. It cannot be reached
by a majority vote or by any percentage. It must
be the verdict of each and everyone [sic] of you.
Remember that your verdict must be a
sentence of death if you unanimously find at least
one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating
circumstances. Or, if you unanimously find one
or more aggravating circumstances which
outweigh any mitigating circumstances. In all
other cases, your verdict must be a sentence of life
imprisonment.
To me its clear "we, the jury, have found unanimously... one or more agravating circumstances which outweigh any mitigating circumstances... The mitigating circumstances is are..."
They cannot find a mitigating factor unless its unanimous which one(s), just like the guilty or not guilty verdict. This is wrong. The following lengthy text cements this in the juror's minds with its continued emphasis on unanimity- at times seeming to directly repeat the earlier demand that only unanimously found factors can be considered.
Sorry for the length, but that's what I was referring to. He's guilty in my opinion, but shouldn't die (even if I supported the death penalty this is not a particularly heinous murder in my opinion), and the aforsaid factors, to say nothing of the jury composition, which I'm unsure of though 2/3 of the prosecutor's strikes were towards blacks, is bullshit.
Edited by johnm214 (04/11/09 10:20 PM)
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center
Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
|
"we've heard of it, but I don't see why this man was denied a right to a trial under a jury that was free of preferential selection."
I have news for all of you. No one has a right to a perfect trial. There is no such thing as a perfect trial. The system of peremptory challenges as well as challenges for cause has evolved over many centuries. It's the best system we have been able to come up with. If you can think of a better one, lets discuss it.
I see nothing in the constitution nor can I think of any legitimate reason why someone should be allowed to have only people of his/her own race, nationality, ethnic group, economic group and so on in the jury. We hear constantly that we are all equal and should have equal rights. But if it's a negro or other special person, then forget about equal, then you want special rights.
If the defense could challenge anyone on the basis of what has been brought up, then they could cherry pick and get only those who express sympathy. Why shouldn't the prosecution be able to challenge anyone they wish if they don't like the economic group or whatever? Why should the defense be allowed to run all over the system? If it was your kid that got killed or raped, I don't think you would be so happy that they get to pick only their homeboys for the jury. And if this hand picked jury ignored all the facts and let him go, how would you feel when the guilty as hell defendant walks free and maybe gives you a wink as he leaves? And how will you feel when the next kid or other innocent person is harmed?
--------------------
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835)
Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 5 months, 27 days
|
Re: Supremes get it right [Re: Stonehenge]
#10151799 - 04/12/09 12:23 PM (15 years, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I see nothing in the constitution nor can I think of any legitimate reason why someone should be allowed to have only people of his/her own race, nationality, ethnic group, economic group and so on in the jury.
You certainly love the strawmen, don't you? No one said the jury should have been all blacks. The issue is that there was not even one black on the jury.
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center
Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
Re: Supremes get it right [Re: Redstorm]
#10151952 - 04/12/09 12:50 PM (15 years, 7 days ago) |
|
|
"The issue is that there was not even one black on the jury."
Again I say so what? Are blacks better able to decide the facts? This is very close to demanding a quota of negros for jury duty. Why should jurors be selected on that basis? If I'm from SE asia, do I get to demand a few from that area? Or columbians get to have columbians on their jury? No one has presented one valid reason why anyone should be allowed to dictate the racial makeup of a jury.
Both the defense and prosecution have the same number of challenges and same rights. If mumia ended up with no blacks on his jury, so what? His lawyer had equal chances to pack the jury with blacks as the prosecutor had to pack it with whites, hispanics or whatever.
I'm still waiting for a better reason than 'oh golly gee whiz' about why this should be.
--------------------
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835)
Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 5 months, 27 days
|
Re: Supremes get it right [Re: Stonehenge]
#10152013 - 04/12/09 01:00 PM (15 years, 7 days ago) |
|
|
I'm not saying there should or shouldn't be reforms to the jury systems. All I'm saying is that your arguments are weak.
|
ScavengerType
Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: Supremes get it right [Re: Stonehenge]
#10152102 - 04/12/09 01:18 PM (15 years, 7 days ago) |
|
|
I don't even see why the prosecution and defense get to choose the jury anyway. The selection process is open for a lot of abuse from both sides, additionally it is another case where the quality of one side's lawyer may seal the cases fate.
However, I will contend that it is a lot easier for the prosecution to single out black jurors, jurors of a poor economic background and ones who may be willing to look past the fact that one of the victims was a cop, than it would be for the defense to select people who would hold the prejudice of the crime to be charged with over actual data. I am not getting specific with this case because I don't know how legally sound the defense was, but with regards to to the selection the prosecution stonewalled the process by eliminating every black that they had a chance to, that is to say they used two thirds of their choices to strike in order to strike jurors who were black. Did they have some sort of ulterior motive? I dono and I doubt you do either, but it is likely a product of racism. The defense had no way to stonewall against whites or against fans of law enforcement officials without asking careful questions that are open to misinterpretation and even false answers. I'm sure that the prosecution didn't even have to ask any questions to ascertain their strikes color or economic status.
--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club
|
TGRR
Horrible Bastard
Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 2,084
Last seen: 12 years, 2 months
|
Re: Supremes get it right [Re: Stonehenge]
#10152703 - 04/12/09 03:15 PM (15 years, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stonehenge said:
I say so what? Did it ever occur to you that certain groups commit more crimes?
Oh, just come out and say it, Jethro.
--------------------
What can we do to help you stop screaming?
Official Mr Shoebat lackey.
|
axl
Stranger
Registered: 12/02/08
Posts: 94
|
Re: Supremes get it right [Re: Stonehenge]
#10152718 - 04/12/09 03:18 PM (15 years, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Getting the government to kill someone for you is pussy.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Red Vein Kratom 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder 
Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Edit 
Reply 
PsiloKitten
lonestar2004
RandalFlagg
toxick
bukkake
SWEDEN