Remember the Oregon militia stand-off?

[Kapadons]

Not surprised to see the usual suspects in here asking for white deaths, while simultaneously hand waving actual terrorists.

Apparently some people know nothing of Ruby Ridge or Branch Davidians or many others. Nothing good comes from the government gunning down white anti-government people. Even if you disagree with that they did/do, wholesale slaughter of them is pretty much the worst thing the government could do.

[Xarkan]

Or keep the judges separate from the government.

A lot of western countries do not use a jury.

But having one man decide seems a rather unstable way to do it. Imagine having one insane lunatic decide your fate. If there are at least 3 (and an uneven number) odds would favor a majority of them being sane.

Judges are too expensive though so lets have 1 judge and the rest (an obviously even number) appointed by other means

Oh wait.

[Stormdash]

It's simply a better safeguard for the rights of the innocent and the integrity of the process for the ultimate finder of fact to be private citizens, the jury system. That is, after all, the highest priority, that only the guilty are punished, that all errors be made in favor of individual liberty.

[Breccia]

Didn't one of them get shot and killed resisting arrest?

I think we've learned something today.

[Mormolyce]

7 of the jurors came from the two most liberal areas of an overall liberal state.

Then they weren't his peers - I demand a mistrial!

[Mayhem]

Knowledge of the law is really immaterial. I don't know if you've ever served on a jury but you get a nice little list of all of the elements required by LAW that must be met in order to find a defendant guilty. They are written in nice little plain English sentences that even the uneducated person can follow. If ANY of those elements are not found to be true, the jury is supposed to find the defendant not guilty.

So it´s all or nothing? Wat?!

[Kellhound]

So it´s all or nothing? Wat?!

Yes, actually, it is. Further, all elements are to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[PhaelixWW]

So it´s all or nothing? Wat?!

Yeah, that would be the linchpin of "innocent until proven guilty".

[Mayhem]

Yes, actually, it is. Further, all elements are to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Well, yeah, but aren´t they at least partially in the wrong? I mean, some actions of them were against the law, weren´t they?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, that would be the linchpin of "innocent until proven guilty".

... I read it differently, but the whole thing makes little to no sense to me until i see what such a "list" looks like.

[Deleted]

But having one man decide seems a rather unstable way to do it. Imagine having one insane lunatic decide your fate. If there are at least 3 (and an uneven number) odds would favor a majority of them being sane.

Judges are too expensive though so lets have 1 judge and the rest (an obviously even number) appointed by other means

Oh wait.

The problem is a jury is that they have no fucking clue how the law works. They can be swayed by emotions instead of facts. That's why you can have these really stupid cases like OJ and killers walking free. Imagine the amount of people being convicted because the prosecutor playing on fears and emotions instead of using facts.

[Slant]

Well, yeah, but aren´t they at least partially in the wrong? I mean, some actions of them were against the law, weren´t they?

Basically... "innocent until proven guilty" practically means you get a list of conditions that have to be met for someone to be guilty and work your way down that list. Once one condition is not met, you're kicked out of the process and the verdict has to be not guilty for that particular law you're applying. There is no "being a little wrong" in this process, as it's a rather binary decision. The "little wrong" comes after you find that the law applies when you try to determine just how much you want to punish him. This is a step after the guilty or not guilty decision.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is a jury is that they have no fucking clue how the law works. They can be swayed by emotions instead of facts. That's why you can have these really stupid cases like OJ and killers walking free. Imagine the amount of people being convicted because the prosecutor playing on fears and emotions instead of using facts.

I believe the original point of a jury (at least in Germany) was to ensure that the judge doesn't get lost in professional trivialities of the specific laws. It may be scientifically interesting to explore a certain variation of an extremely obscure case, but more often than not, it's just a waste of time and quite unfair. And all just to satisfy the scientific curiosity of the judge. That's why not being proficient in the law is actually the defining quality of juries. They're meant to represent the laymen and make sure the verdict makes sense even without knowing the law.

However, having said that... most of the times, jurys are a bigger problem than the one they're meant to address.

[Xarkan]

The problem is a jury is that they have no fucking clue how the law works. They can be swayed by emotions instead of facts. That's why you can have these really stupid cases like OJ and killers walking free. Imagine the amount of people being convicted because the prosecutor playing on fears and emotions instead of using facts.

"Oh wait" was more that i was arguing a system that would be somewhat close to a judge and two lay judges. I wonder if i can find a country with something like that...

[Mayhem]

Basically... "innocent until proven guilty" practically means you get a list of conditions that have to be met for someone to be guilty and work your way down that list. Once one condition is not met, you're kicked out of the process and the verdict has to be not guilty for that particular law you're applying. There is no "being a little wrong" in this process, as it's a rather binary decision. The "little wrong" comes after you find that the law applies when you try to determine just how much you want to punish him. This is a step after the guilty or not guilty decision.

... wait, so despite them trespassing government property it´s all or nothing? That can´t be true. I´m missing something here am i not?

[TZucchini]

I'm trying to understand this from a practical standpoint. One of the charges was "conspiracy to impede federal officers through intimidation, threats or force." That objectively happened. It's not up for debate. One person ended up being killed by police, and the refuge was badly damaged.

I'm not saying they should be thrown in jail for life, but a light prison sentence seems fairly justified here.

[Machismo]

Not surprised to see the usual suspects in here asking for white deaths, while simultaneously hand waving actual terrorists.

Apparently some people know nothing of Ruby Ridge or Branch Davidians or many others. Nothing good comes from the government gunning down white anti-government people. Even if you disagree with that they did/do, wholesale slaughter of them is pretty much the worst thing the government could do.

But the Bundy family is a terrorist group.

[Venant]

But the Bundy family is a terrorist group.

Well clearly Obama should have just droned them.

And those people protesting the pipeline in North Dakota? Sure drone them too.

Summary executions for everyone!

[Machismo]

Well clearly Obama should have just droned them.

And those people protesting the pipeline in North Dakota? Sure drone them too.

Summary executions for everyone!

If a group of armed Muslims had taken over federal land, you can bet your ass that they would have been killed. That's a clear double standard.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the welfare trash that is the Bundy family. The second they sought to force people off of public land, they turned into the BLM, the exact thing they've been fighting against. Thugs and savages... all of them.

[Aggrophobic]

All defendants found not guilty by a jury of their peers.

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-sta...ror_direc.html

Nice justice system you have there.
Putin might have been wrong. Maybe the US is a banana republic.

[zephid]

Why? Would you rather one person be in charge of deciding case outcomes?

No, not a single person. You can have a couple of judges, say 3-4 who acts as an jury. The big flaw with the jury system in the U.S. is that you will have people who doesn't want to be on jury duty and who have no idea about the law deciding the outcome of a trial. It's much better to have a "professional jury" of judges, or at least people who have law degree.

[Breccia]

Yes that armed people resisting arrest can get shot - who would have thought so!!!

Well it was more like "running from the police is a stupid idea" but that's just as "duh" too.

If he'd have stayed in the car, he'd be a free man now.