Fair Trial by Jury

I'm thinking that this isn't possible. Of course, there is a selection process for a Jury ...

Their history/record is viewed, which doesn't really indicate how a person actually thinks .. only that they haven't been in trouble with law.

A questionnaire is filled out, which doesn't really mean anything because when we fill out forms ... we all remain sensible because no feelings are involved.

As we look through dxp, we can see certain traits of our peers that remain pretty consistent. We have ...

1) Those who will only see the positive side of the person who is having troubles and will refuse to accept that they've done anything wrong within the situation. This is called compassion for the person in plight. In this compassionate out-reach, the other person to whom isn't here is ALWAYS the one in wrong, regardless .. even when the poster says this person is actually a good person.

2) Those who will only see the negative side of the person who is having troubles and will refuse to accept that this person is void of all innocence. In this negative stance .. the person having the problems becomes the guilty, eventhough there may have been valid information to conclude they were innocent.

3) Even the people who remain completely indifferent when they can actually "see" a truth within the scenrio, is really taking a position of not liking to be confrontational.


My whole point is ... with just us in here, when we come across situations, we immediately already have a mind-set in which to formulate our opinion, or judgement. Once an emotion has been evoked, we people in dxp, consistently follow this same path in which we view circumstances .. completely and totally biased, based off of our own emotional interpretation of how each situation and person should be regarded and treated.

So, how can we in real life actually have a Jury who is impartial, if we have so programmed ourselves to be emotionally biased, according to how we believe is appropriate treatment to another person in trouble?

Furthermore .. we become emotionally dependent on our feelings through experience, which is this exact programming.

For example .. the situation: Someone on trial for murdering their mother.

One person: Has a very close connection with mother, and though evidence is presented in detail, regarding both sides .. this person has already formulated within their mind, according to how they feel about their mother, and so will not look at the murderers POV objectively because they are dependent upon their feelings for their own mother.

Second person: Is estranged from their mother, was neglected and therefore, already has an image in their mind that the mother must have done something to provoke this person into killing her. Again, all the evidence is presented .. however, this person is "looking" for a reason within the testimony on the murderers side in which to take sides because their dependent upon their feelings for their own mother.


So, how is it possible to have a fair Jury? We've already made our judgements and assessments, according to our own feelings and how we want to view something .... we just go about life applying it as each situation arises.

Angie, I agree that there is no such thing as a fair jury. I'm not just saying that because they always said I was guilty but people are not robots. They have emotions that will always conflict with the facts. This can work for the defense sometimes though. Often times, a lawyer might try to show a jury the defendant's more sympathetic side to try and nullify the jury. You need to look at the possibility that the defendant is innocent which is what most people refuse to see. They would rather see an innocent man thrown in jail because of that opportunity rather than believing the real killer(s) is/are out there. It gives them a piece of mind which is a very false piece of mind.

I've never been a jurer but I've been a defendant four times and it is amazing how many times you are judged by things that have no relevance to the case like your appearance, your family (if they're there) or even something as small as a symbol like a cross. The last judge I was facing was a Catholic man with 4 kids. I was actually advised to wear and show my cross. There are certain things that people look for that really make no sense to me. But it worked in my favour at the time and I got off without even having a record.

If I was a jurer I wouldn't be a very good one. I would probably always vote not guilty. If there is any advice that I could give you it would be to not look at the defendant at all if you can avoid looking at him or her. As stupid as that sounds it will give you a false impression most of the time.

I hadn't thought about that, Scorpius (the judge) .. I was only thinking about the jury. But, you're right .. it would seem impossible to get a fair judge.

We have certain impressions plugged into our psyches, based off of emotional prejudices gained from our own life .. and we will subconsciously revert to this when judging circumstance.


How can that be fair? I don't think it can.

Sometimes i wonder if OJ Simpson would have been 'criminally' convicted if tried by *Judge alone. I hate to say it, but did race or even money have anything to do with it? Another thing; "if the glove doesn't fit, you must aquit." Many jurors held that as their (ultimate) judgement for *not guilty. The rest of the evidence which i saw as very credible had no more bearing, so yes i very much hear you P-Angel.

Another question one could ask: (do) the filthy rich get a better deal, than the regular joe-blow?

I also agree with that, mystic .. just a month ago, we were down at our local tavern, my husband and I stopping in for a beer after shopping and the barmaid was talking to a customer rather loud.

She was talking about a suspicious looking guy that has her worried that he's going to do something to her. So, our ears perked up .. we live in this town and want to know also if there is a person we should be concerned about.

Turns out .. he was black. That's it !!!!

So, a person doesn't really have to do anything for a certain attitude to be present in the mind .. like with Scorpius and wearing his cross like he mentioned.

"Another thing; "if the glove doesn't fit, you must aquit." Many jurors held that as their (ultimate) judgement for *not guilty."

That's very disturbing ....

"Another thing; "if the glove doesn't fit, you must aquit." Many jurors held that as their (ultimate) judgement for *not guilty."


Oh, my husband just explained what that meant .. I thought you were saying that if he doesn't fit the "black" glove, then aquit.

"Another question one could ask: (do) the filthy rich get a better deal, than the regular joe-blow?"

Lol! You've never been one of the bad guys, huh? Yes. Most of the time (if you go through the process legitimtately) you can usually afford a better lawyer or team of lawyers and if you are given the option of bail then you can buy your freedom temporarily, which will also count as time served. Also, if the judge knows you are wealthy he will look at you as a benefit to the community and also take note that you've done well for yourself and would like to see that continuing. If you were poor and are up against charges then you will be deemed as poor to society and looked at with little hope even before your case would start.

P-Angel, there are lots of factors on race too. What you will notice about black people is that it works both ways. If people are unfavorable of black people then they might call them a nasty name or things like that BUT! In the legal system it ay actually work well for them. For example: About 3 or 4 months ago right here in Rochester two black men were arrested for shooting at a young guy out of the window of their car. They guy made it and he is alive but he was shot twice in the arm and stomach area which could have killed him. Do you know what the two black men got as punishment? 5 years probation each. They got probation because in the eyes of the public, if they were to get a prison term the judge would be seen as racist.

Public and Politics. Those two factors are a hundred times more important than how good your representation is. For another example: I am facing charges right now for a crime that (may or may not have) been commited 2 months ago. Now, by the book and as punishment of the 7 laws I (may have) broke I could (by the book) face up to 39 years in prison. However, I had two accomplisses who have already confessed and they have been made public where as I have remained in the shadows. This could have two outcomes based completely on the public's opinion.

.1) The judge and the public will see the other two be put to jail and I get off scot-free or with light probation because they would be looked at as the bigger fry which is what political justice is all about.

.2) Because of my legnthy criminal history and the fact that my name is known as "detrimental" to society (which is a load of shit) I can be looked at as the bigger fry if I were to go to jail. The upside of that,it wont be a long sentance.

And also to further answer your question, ~mystic_fish, if you were really wealthy then you could probably buy yourself out of an arrest and never face a trial at all. It's bribery and is also illegal and if you would be caught for that it would be an additional obstruction of justice charge, however, that's unlikely to happen when you buy off a police officer. You have to keep an eye out for the right one to buy off too and most of the time you have to take the money to either the highest power (chief of police) or the lowest power (police officer). This is not the most uncommon thing but if you're working alone in a life of crime then it usually only works for petty things.

Unfortunately for me, this place is not like Mexico.

"Oh, my husband just explained what that meant .. I thought you were saying that if he doesn't fit the "black" glove, then aquit."

i can see why you would think that, P-Angel, it was such a long time ago now! .. =) Yeah, that was the black leather glove found at the crime scene, and wouldn't quite fit OJ's hand. I can't recall if any trace amounts of blood were found on it. The prosecution thought the leather had shrunk from the rains, and were not convinced it didn't belong to OJ. They even brought in supporting leather experts to testify.

"So, a person doesn't really have to do anything for a certain attitude to be present in the mind .. like with Scorpius and wearing his cross like he mentioned."

So true P-Angel, that barmaid was only scared because he was "black"? ..wowww, that is pretty sad, but a testament of the society we currently live in. *sounds sooo cliche, but really really true; never judge a book by it's cover! ..This can work in reverse too: many of the people you would NEVER suspect of anything are now sitting in prison for the crimes they commited.

That's why I didn't get a tattoe. 😉

"That's why I didn't get a tattoe."

Unless it was the Stars & Stripes blazened across your chest, huh! 😉 btw, thanks for all the interesting info Michael! ..With the prison population exploding and much earlier parole for med to even high risk offenders, both our countries are ALOT less safe too!

*Hey, now why can't all judges be like *Judge JUDY! 🙂 Now, that's one fiesty Scorpio judge that won't be giving any freebies too soon..! *Rich, poor, Alien or otherwise...

ha ha, i like it when she says; "Is THE WORD STUPID WRITTEN ACROSS MY FOREHEAD?"

Other JJ quotes:
"That must be the S.O.D.D.I. principle: "Some Other Dude Done It."
"If you live to be a hundred, you will never be as smart as me. On your BEST day, you're not as smart as *I* am on my WORST day."
"I'm here because I'm smart, not because I'm young and gorgeous... although I am!"
"Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining."
"Do you come from a long line of idiots?"
"Do you feel as if you're getting whipped?"
"Get over it!"

Judge Judy: Who are you?
Witness: I'm here for pain and suffering.
Judge Judy: Yours or mine?

"Have you ever heard of the K.I.S.S. principle? "Keep It Simple, Stupid." 😛

"Goodbye, have a happy life!"

"Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining."


Oh, I love this quote of hers .... I've wanted to get her book titled same, but haven't gotten around to it, yet.

Once, I actually saw her rendered speechless ... only ONCE, and the look on her face was priceless ..

"Tho, do you guys think she is also biased in the way PA described? I think she sometimes EXPECTS BS from people so much, that she overlooks sincerity."


Yeah, I think so .. especially when it involves men and child support BECAUSE of her years in family court. A point came where I had to stop watching her show because it really ticked me off when she did this. If it's a situation where there's a child, then she automatically stops listening to whatever the man is saying and has immediately made her decision that he's wrong in the case .. even when the case doesn't even involve the child.

The ex, who is upset about something that has nothing to do with support of the child .. Judy will rule in her favor, even if the man was right within the scenerio, simply because there is a child between them and in her eyes, she's already made the assumption that he isn't paying enough to support the kid.

I remember watching a situation where the guy said that him and the ex were in the middle of a child support case when Judy found out that they have a kid, and told him that that wasn't good enough .. it was his obligation to have approached this issue long before now, eventhough the current case wasn't even about the child, and then ruled for the plaintiff.

That's wrong, in my eyes ... a person isn't guilty of every charge simply because they have done something wrong with another issue.