Not sure why you're so eager to argue, Viv. I'm sure there are similar 'hung juries' in your own justice system and I certainly wouldn't object to hearing your experiences if you found yourself serving on one. I sat with the hold-out juror at lunch the first day of the trial, before we heard any testimony. During that convo, I learned she supports Obama and from her manner of speech, figured out she wasn't too bright... which makes her a liberal. Notice you have the same problem she had about our case... you demand more evidence than existed. In a perfect world...
A couple of us told our hold-out juror she was the type we'd want on our jury if we ever found ourselves on the other side of that bench. She was so dense, she took it as a compliment.
Now that is just a silly thing to say, and an even sillier thing to think. Believing that people hold other political opinions to your own because they are 'not too bright' is really a very bad road of thinking to start down, especially in a context like serving on a jury. It's that kind of thinking that leads to misjudgements and mistakes (and potentially miscarriages of justice, in that context) by people refusing to listen to an alternative point of view being expressed on the assumption that the person expressing them must be 'stupid' because they disagree with certain political views. We see such silly thinking exhibited regularly in politics, with people refusing to listen, compromise, or find sensible solutions to problems because the other 'side' are stupid and anything they say must be stupid and wrong and must be opposed at all costs (no matter how sensible it might actually be). In fact, that's a big part of what is wrong with the 2 party political system in the USA - any attempt at common sense from anyone is quickly stamped out in a pitched battle of mud-slinging nonsense before anybody actually bothers to look into it (other than perhaps to just find any reason to oppose it on principle, no matter how ridiculous a reason it might be!). Any perception that differences in political opinion derive from simplistic manifestations of relative stupidity would be completely wrong. There are stupid people on all 'sides', and intelligent people on all 'sides' (there is I personally suspect, perhaps, some link between 'stupidity' and 'extremism', but that would be a sweeping generalisation - I would never assume that even the most extreme of views were born out of sheer stupidity, even though some of those expressing them may quite obviously sometimes be not the sharpest tools in the box!). It may be that the person was 'stupid', a 'liberal', and 'wrong', but going into the jury room with that possibility/probability in mind (either about defendants, witnesses or fellow jurors) based on simple political prejudice would be every bit as bad as not listening to the evidence, or refusing to consider/acknowledge what the evidence actually shows on the grounds of a personal political bias.
Can you tell us the state & city? how about names? The case should be a matter of public record, so you won't be doing anything wrong by giving us enough information to look inti this on our own & make some determinations. Thx Citizen
And that's an equally silly thing to say. It's actually usually people who lack critical thinking skills who lack critical thinking skills. People who disagree politically have no inherently different levels of intelligence or critical thinking, they just have just formed different political opinions by thinking about things in slightly different ways and from slightly different personal perspectives. Some of those people, on all political 'sides', lack critical thinking skills, and some of them don't.
Well I agree. The whole point of the author of this thread was to brand all Liberals as being a certain way- frankly it was just a cheap shot at liberals. Anyone bring us bring up "12 Angry Men" and Henry Fonda's character yet? Was his character a liberal? I would like to think he was just an honest man searching for justice and unwilling to be bullied into his decision.
Actually it works. They have a Ron Paul bumper sticker on their car they are a nut case. If they have an Obama bumper sticker on their car they are a loon. And it's usually right.
Actually if you use cold logic and reasoned deduction to come to decisions your usually a Conservative. Liberals waste time making decisions based on how that decision makes them feel.
A third of Texas believes man co-existed with dinosaurs, and another third are unsure. Yeah, I am totally off base.
The whole point of this thread was to discuss my experience on a hung jury, which happened to be caused by the one liberal member of a 6 member panel. Feel free to post about your own experience, should you ever have one. Maybe you'll luck out and have a sole conservative refuse to consider the facts because their mind was already made up and they refused to be swayed by a silly thing like evidence.
In this case, it sounds from your side of the story at least, that the juror was an idiot. However, police have to follow the law regarding procedures for proper arrests, and if they fail to do so, the defendant ought to benefit from that. Perhaps it shouldn't mean an automatic dismissal, but that's how the system works. Don't blame that on one juror following the law.