Another verdict I disagree with.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Another verdict I disagree with.

It is all over the news, no link but I will give you the overall skinny, ONLY AS part of a theoretical view of law in general in the aspect that I DONT like the direction it is going. SO in reading this please understand this is NOT bout one case, but THE CLIMATE of our current society of getting on a jury just to get even.

So a rich millionaire caused a crash and left the scene a person died as a result, THERE IS NO DISPUTE in this case on those facts. However, he was convicted of drunk driving, EVEN THOUGH no one saw him at the time of the crash. Now his defense was that his car was defective and he couldn't do anything for the person anyway, panicked and when he got home drank.

YEA bullshit, I know. But if I sat on that jury I could ONLY convict him on the hit and run and the failure to lend aid. But I could not convict him on the drunk driving. Not because he didn't do it, but evidence, not my emotional reaction to the nature of the charge, is what matters.

I don't like our climate of "Justice" because it isn't as much fact based, but emotionally based.

It isn't based on "If it walks like a duck, it's a duck", NO you as the cops, prosecuting lawyer, judge and jury, YOU JOB is to follow due process and base it SOLELY based on what you can prove, not what you think the accused deserves. YOU CANT JUST SAY "IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK," If you are going to take anyone's freedom away you better damned will PROVE it is a duck.

The reason all of us reading this should care, IS NOT based on this guy, or one case. THE REASON we should care is because humans can be vindictive and EVIDENCE is the only thing that can prevent the falsely accused from falsely being imprisoned.

I fear our jury pool climate is creating the atmosphere that it is more important to send a message than it is to get the facts right.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I don't like

Brian37 wrote:
I don't like our climate of "Justice" because it isn't as much fact based, but emotionally based.

I completely agree. The risk of letting someone off easy is more than outweighed by the risk of punishing the innocent.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 

  http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/03/polo-playboy-goodman-might-be-facing-30-years/

If this is the case you are talking about I don't see a problem and his ass should be facing 30 years. It looks like he was facing dual charges of vehicular homicide and dui manslaughter. Presumably the question of whether or not he was drunk was a question the trial spent a significant amount of time on. He is rich, I'm sure his lawyer wasn't incompetent and did everything possible to pass it off as a straight accident.

 

Also, presumably the prosecution presented substantial evidence that he was in fact drunk, starting with a receipt showing he purchased 10 shots of Espalon Silver, 6 shots of Patron Silver, 1 Johnnie Walker Red, and 1 shot of Grey Goose all inside of an hour. We learn three things from the receipt- First for a "playboy" he has shitty taste in scotch and second he is a cheap ass tipper (for a playboy). Probably irrelevant, ok ditch the emotion, those details don't matter.

 

What matters is the third thing, he purchased quite a bit of alcohol before the accident. I assume the prosecution put the bartender on the stand to testify to whether or not he drank those drinks himself or was buying them for someone else. If you look through the pictures with the captions you see several of the bars employees testified. Without the transcript I don't know what that testimony was, but it was apparently enough to convince the jury he was in fact drunk.

 

The moral of the story is take good care of your bartender so she doesn't testify against you. Or better yet, don't drink and drive. If you can afford to blow almost $300 on an hour of drinking you can afford a cab you dumb fuck. If you can't afford a cab get a friend to be your DD or hang out for a bit at the bar after you are done drinking to sober up. If you drive drunk and kill someone you deserve to rot in jail.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: 

Beyond Saving wrote:

  http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2012/03/polo-playboy-goodman-might-be-facing-30-years/

If this is the case you are talking about I don't see a problem and his ass should be facing 30 years. It looks like he was facing dual charges of vehicular homicide and dui manslaughter. Presumably the question of whether or not he was drunk was a question the trial spent a significant amount of time on. He is rich, I'm sure his lawyer wasn't incompetent and did everything possible to pass it off as a straight accident.

 

Also, presumably the prosecution presented substantial evidence that he was in fact drunk, starting with a receipt showing he purchased 10 shots of Espalon Silver, 6 shots of Patron Silver, 1 Johnnie Walker Red, and 1 shot of Grey Goose all inside of an hour. We learn three things from the receipt- First for a "playboy" he has shitty taste in scotch and second he is a cheap ass tipper (for a playboy). Probably irrelevant, ok ditch the emotion, those details don't matter.

 

What matters is the third thing, he purchased quite a bit of alcohol before the accident. I assume the prosecution put the bartender on the stand to testify to whether or not he drank those drinks himself or was buying them for someone else. If you look through the pictures with the captions you see several of the bars employees testified. Without the transcript I don't know what that testimony was, but it was apparently enough to convince the jury he was in fact drunk.

 

The moral of the story is take good care of your bartender so she doesn't testify against you. Or better yet, don't drink and drive. If you can afford to blow almost $300 on an hour of drinking you can afford a cab you dumb fuck. If you can't afford a cab get a friend to be your DD or hang out for a bit at the bar after you are done drinking to sober up. If you drive drunk and kill someone you deserve to rot in jail.

 

AGAIN neither you or I sat on the jury. I am talking about climate in the over all view of how our society views law in general. The fact was that no one was on the spot to give him a breath test. I am NOT saying he was not drunk, I agree that he most likely WAS. But what I think does not matter.

Just based on what I am seeing on TV I could only convict him of manslaughter and fleeing the scene of the accident and failure to lend aid.

Quote:
If you drive drunk and kill someone you deserve to rot in jail.

What you can PROVE is far more important to me than the fact that you get accused otherwise there would be no need at all for courts. Anytime someone we don't like gets accused we could simply shoot them in the street like a Muslim women at half time at a soccer game.

STOP MAKING THIS about one case when I am talking about CLIMATE in a long term sense.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:AGAIN neither

Brian37 wrote:

AGAIN neither you or I sat on the jury. I am talking about climate in the over all view of how our society views law in general. The fact was that no one was on the spot to give him a breath test. I am NOT saying he was not drunk, I agree that he most likely WAS. But what I think does not matter.

Just based on what I am seeing on TV I could only convict him of manslaughter and fleeing the scene of the accident and failure to lend aid.

Quote:
If you drive drunk and kill someone you deserve to rot in jail.

What you can PROVE is far more important to me than the fact that you get accused otherwise there would be no need at all for courts. Anytime someone we don't like gets accused we could simply shoot them in the street like a Muslim women at half time at a soccer game.

STOP MAKING THIS about one case when I am talking about CLIMATE in a long term sense.

 

What climate are you talking about? If there is a problem with the climate then it should be easy to find not just one, but several specific cases to be examples. If this case isn't an example of whatever problem you see, then why did you bring it up? 

 

The jury sat and determined there was enough evidence to convict. From my perspective I do not think that was an unreasonable conclusion to arrive at. There WAS evidence, there WAS a trial, there WERE several witnesses providing testimony, he DID have lawyers, there is NO evidence that his lawyers did anything other than provide the best defense they were capable of, the definition of the charges WAS provided to the jury, the jury was instructed about the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, and the jury unanimously found him guilty in half an hour- extremely fast for this kind of case. What reason do you have to question the jury's judgement? What basis do you have to believe that the jury's verdict was based on emotion and not facts?

 

You present this case like it is an illustration of some massive problem. Where is the problem? He was accused, he got a trial, a jury found him guilty. Unless you have some evidence that the prosecution broke some rules or that somehow his lawyers were prevented from providing the best defense or some kind of jury tampering, I see no reason why this case, or the results should be questioned. If there is any reason why the results should be questioned I'm sure his attorneys will file for an appeal. If anything, this case seems to be an illustration that the system does work and goes against the popular mythology that those who can afford to hire good lawyers can get away with murder. 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

AGAIN neither you or I sat on the jury. I am talking about climate in the over all view of how our society views law in general. The fact was that no one was on the spot to give him a breath test. I am NOT saying he was not drunk, I agree that he most likely WAS. But what I think does not matter.

Just based on what I am seeing on TV I could only convict him of manslaughter and fleeing the scene of the accident and failure to lend aid.

Quote:
If you drive drunk and kill someone you deserve to rot in jail.

What you can PROVE is far more important to me than the fact that you get accused otherwise there would be no need at all for courts. Anytime someone we don't like gets accused we could simply shoot them in the street like a Muslim women at half time at a soccer game.

STOP MAKING THIS about one case when I am talking about CLIMATE in a long term sense.

 

What climate are you talking about? The jury sat and determined there was enough evidence to convict. From my perspective I do not think that was an unreasonable conclusion to arrive at. There WAS evidence, there WAS a trial, there WERE several witnesses providing testimony, he DID have lawyers, there is NO evidence that his lawyers did anything other than provide the best defense they were capable of, the definition of the charges WAS provided to the jury, the jury was instructed about the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, and the jury unanimously found him guilty in half an hour- extremely fast for this kind of case. What reason do you have to question the jury's judgement? What basis do you have to believe that the jury's verdict was based on emotion and not facts?

 

You present this case like it is an illustration of some massive problem. Where is the problem? He was accused, he got a trial, a jury found him guilty. Unless you have some evidence that the prosecution broke some rules or that somehow his lawyers were prevented from providing the best defense or some kind of jury tampering, I see no reason why this case, or the results should be questioned. If there is any reason why the results should be questioned I'm sure his attorneys will file for an appeal. If anything, this case seems to be an illustration that the system does work and goes against the popular mythology that those who can afford to hire good lawyers can get away with murder. 

 

No I bring up this case as A REMINDER, not as per the jury itself or this case itself, but how mass media SEXES UP EVERYTHING. I don't want long term a society jury pool  that sides with either the prosecution, cops or defense or JUDGE.  FACTS alone are what cops and prosecutors, judges and juries should be after.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37