Re: Hackers branded as terrorists was: (no subject)

[Douglas Handy <dhandy1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

JT,

>Well... actually I agree with
>the statement, but left unstated a few other points:
>
>The fact that the verdict came back with, what... 4 hours? IMHO indicted the
>jurists of total incompetency.

But that has nothing to do with the civil case.  You were (seemingly) trying to
alledge the civil case verdict proved the criminal case jury was wrong.  Why?
Just because they took longer to reach the verdict, so they must have made a
more informed decision?  That just proves the civil jurors weren't initially in
agreement, and had to iron out differences amongst themselves.

A quick verdict should indicate immediate consensus among jurors, but does not
necessarily indicate a lack of contemplating the merits of the case.  With the
higher bar which must be hurdled in the criminal case -- "beyond a perponderance
of a doubt" or whatever it is -- it is not unfathomable that a criminal jury can
quickly decide the evidence is not sufficient to meet the legal standard, as
explained by the judge's instructions to the jury, while it can take much longer
to resolve whether or not the evidence qualifies to a lower standard.

If a jury comes back in 15 minutes with a "Guilty!" verdict, does that indicate
a totaly incompetent jury or might it perhaps be an open-and-shut case?
Likewise, if a 12 panel jury comes back in 4 hours after weeks of testimony and
acquits the defendant of the charge, it may just mean the prosecutor brought the
wrong charge and should have pressed a lessor charge with a lower burden of
proof.

I'm not so much referring to the OJ case in particular, as contesting your
aparent stance that a quick verdict is evidence of an incompetent jury.

I've never actually served on a jury -- I've always been rejected by one side or
the other when questioned -- so I don't have first-hand experience in a jury
deliberation room.  But my Pollyanna view is that you can't read too much into
the speed of a verdict.

But I'm *not* trying to stick up for the criminal in-justice system here.  We
had some dialogue on it a few years ago, so I think you know how I feel.  The
quote "It's a court of law, not a court of justice" is about as succinct as I
can summarize it.

>(BTW, Doug, are you on the USA911 list, as it would save me from
>cross-posting?)

I'm not.  I hadn't seen it among the lists in the left column at
www.midrange.com and never bothered to send an explicit subscription request.
I've been trying real hard to do more lurking and less active participation in
threads that never die.  I've got too many irons in the fire right now, and
can't juggle another ball that takes so much time to keep in the air.

Doug