Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Jury made a 'fair' decision.

28 (21.5%)

Jury could have been less 'lenient'.

9 (6.9%)

Jury was way too 'lenient'.

6 (4.6%)

I do not agree with the decision made by the Jury, but still respect it.

8 (6.2%)

Jury should be hung.

6 (4.6%)

Evidence obtained via torture should have been used.

8 (6.2%)

The US should use Special Courts for Terrorists.

10 (7.7%)

Special exceptions to the law should be given for Terrorists.

1 (0.8%)

Special exceptions to how justice is handled should be given for Terrorists.

3 (2.3%)

I don't care.... or something...

7 (5.4%)

Jury has been too harsh.

3 (2.3%)

Terrorists are soldiers and you can't judge them in court.

11 (8.5%)

Terrorists are not soldiers, they have their own special classification.

5 (3.8%)

Terrorists are not soldiers, they have same rights as any other basic human.

25 (19.2%)

Total Members Voted: 61

[Criptfeind]

I went with Jury made a fair decision and Terrorists are soldiers and you can't judge them in court.

[Heron TSG]

I didn't vote on whether or not it was fair; I didn't read the transcript of the court session.

[nenjin]

Judge Lewis Kaplan told the jurors that their verdict said a lot about the U.S. justice system.

"American justice can be rendered calmly, deliberately and fairly by ordinary people, people who are not beholden to any government, not even ours," Kaplan said.  "It can be rendered with fidelity to the Constitution. You have a right to be proud of your service in this case."

Nailed it. Whether you wanted the bastard to fry or not, this was a decision made by the people according to the laws we say we uphold. While I don't think every jury verdict is sacrosanct simply because it's a jury verdict, the fact New Yorkers chose to acquit him of most of the charges because they felt the case wasn't made says a lot about our faith in our own laws. The choice may later bite us in the ass, when he comes up for parole in 10 or whatever years. But I'm proud of that jury's courage in finding what they felt was right under the law. If ever there was a place where a jury could have just as easily ignored reasonable doubt, it would have been here.

[Aqizzar]

Interview with former New York governor George Pataki, and law-professor and court-appointed terror-lawyer Jonathan Turley.

They blather, you decide.  It should be noted that the resolution was considerably more complicated than just that the jurors didn't think the prosecution made its case.  It was that significant elements of the charges relied on testimony or witnesses brought to trial by statutorily illegal means.  This is what happens when you let zeal corrupt part of the process of law, and then reign it back to books.  If there's a lesson to learn here, it's proceed with absolutely certainly of the legal process from the very beginning.  Or if nothing else, go full dictat from the start to the end and keep your cards straight.

[Leafsnail]

Isn't... it slander to say someone's a "murderer, criminal and terrorist" if they were judged to be innocent of it?

EDIT: Uh, innocent of murder.  He was still found guilty of being a criminal and terrorist.

[Soadreqm]

I'm leaning towards "innocent until proven guilty" as well. Being accused of being a terrorist doesn't mean that he actually is one, and if the jury agreed that it was not proven, that means that he gets away with it. It looks that he might really be guilty, though, so I hope that next time the relevant authorities actually do their jobs and get some evidence they can use.

[Muz]

Where's the option that says jury system fails?

There's just so many examples of the jury system not working right. Innocent people being sentenced to death, obviously guilty people being set free. Like with politics, it's not about fighting the best solution, it's become a battle of charisma and persuasion.

I'm happy with a system where only the judges decide. Judges are highly educated, experienced with similar cases, and paid so highly that they can't see a reason to accept bribes.


But on this, if there's 285 counts and only one of them is agreed upon as a crime, there's something very wrong. Personally, I'm disgusted that so many people agreed that he was guilty before putting him through court. Or there's a lot of false accusations.

I'm also missing the point why there needs to be different courts for soldiers and civilians. Is it just because one is less reliable and cheaper?

[Kogan Loloklam]

So, if I accused you of 974 different illegal acts, and you are arrested and tried for them, you SHOULD be convicted for many of them?


This is the flaw with our jury system. The sheer weight of accusations. The failure of innocent until proven guilty to actually carry over.
Sometimes the people everyone knows is guilty is innocent of all the charges. Yet people might think that since there are so many, one of them has to be returned guilty.


The fact it took so long for us to get real justice to the people detained in Guantanimo is a problem.

I believe firmly that illegal combatants aren't soldiers. As such they are to be treated as if they were civilians, which means civilian courts in our system of government. The fact that our military institution is acting in collusion with our government to subvert basic items granted to everyone who washes up upon our shore pisses me off greatly.

[Dwarf]

In my opinion, there is no difference between someone killing for his country and someone killing for his beliefs, or whatever. Both are murderers, period.

EDIT: Of course, in draft armies, problems may arise; for instance, they're forced to kill…

[Kogan Loloklam]

In my opinion, there is no difference between someone killing for his country and someone killing for his beliefs, or whatever. Both are murderers, period.

EDIT: Of course, in draft armies, problems may arise; for instance, they're forced to kill…

Not true. They are forced to move in the direction of their enemy. Nobody has ever been executed to my knowledge for refusal to fire a gun. Cowardice sure, but as long as you never actually run away, then you won't be executed.

[Eugenitor]

Nobody has ever been executed to my knowledge for refusal to fire a gun.

That problem usually solves itself, guess how and why.

[Aqizzar]

Nobody has ever been executed to my knowledge for refusal to fire a gun. Cowardice sure, but as long as you never actually run away, then you won't be executed.

That's a hopelessly large statement about all of history.  I'm quite certain that in the armies of the Czar you could be executed for anything your officer wanted.  If we're talking about America, I'd be a little surprised if anyone ever really was executed on the spot for cowardice.  Even people breaking ranks and running away comes up pretty rarely in accounts of old battles.

[Spreggo]

Running away isn't a very good alternative, as usually it only provides a fine opportunity for the enemy to stab or fire into your back.

[Leafsnail]

Where's the option that says jury system fails?

There's just so many examples of the jury system not working right. Innocent people being sentenced to death, obviously guilty people being set free. Like with politics, it's not about fighting the best solution, it's become a battle of charisma and persuasion.

You're right, who needs juries.  Clearly you have the relevant knowledge and authority to pronounce anyone innocent or "obviously guilty", since you are JUSTICE ITSELF.

But on this, if there's 285 counts and only one of them is agreed upon as a crime, there's something very wrong. Personally, I'm disgusted that so many people agreed that he was guilty before putting him through court. Or there's a lot of false accusations.

You can have a million accusations against you and still be innocent.  Most of the accusations seem to refer to a single event and the stuff that relates to that event.

Maybe they, I dunno, genuinely got the wrong guy?  Sure, there was testimony obtained through torture, but you could probably get me to admit to commiting terrorist attacks 20 years before my birth if you used those techniques.

Nobody has ever been executed to my knowledge for refusal to fire a gun. Cowardice sure, but as long as you never actually run away, then you won't be executed.

Look up British executions in World War One.  Then try saying that again.

Sure, you wouldn't be shot on the spot, but after a short military tribunal with little or no evidence needed (hey, kindof like what people are advocating for these terrorism suspects) you would be.

In any case, under this logic, you should try all American soldiers for murder too...

[DJ]

Maintaining principles in justice is more important than convicting any single criminal.