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

Doug,

See comments inline (>>).

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-nontech-admin@midrange.com
[mailto:midrange-nontech-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Douglas Handy
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 12:27 PM
To: midrange-nontech@midrange.com
Subject: Re: Hackers branded as terrorists was: (no subject)


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?

>> Because I believe that the quality of the team of defense lawyers
essential bought an innocent verdict.



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.

>> A quick verdict usually DOES mean there is immediate consensus among
jurors, and usually would lead one to believe it was a more accurate
verdict.  It is certainly not unfathomable for a jury to decide quickly, and
usually with good results.



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 wasn't trying to equate speed of verdict to mean a poor quality
verdict.

>> And granted, the prosectution case was less than stellar.  But DNA
evidence is DNA evidence.  Again, the defense lawyers were better, and were
able to call that into question.

>> But, do you know what?  I can't say, for a fact, that I studied all the
evidence presented in the case.  In fact, I can state that I didn't.  So I
guess I can't determine if this was a good decision by the jury, or not,
with 100% certainty.

>> However, the whole country had been debating the guilt or innocence of OJ
for weeks.  There was quite a mixed opinion.  These 12 jurists, however,
MUST have been superior in judgment, compared to the entire rest of the
country, considering how swiftly they came to their conclusion.  Either
that, or they goofed.

>> There is no mathematical possibility that they discussed much of the
evidence presented, in four hours.  IMHO, the jury goofed, *not so much
because of the verdict*, but because *they obviously never discussed any of
the mountains of evidence in their deliberations*.  They whittled it down to
one or two over-simplified points (I don't recall what they were) and CALLED
themselves deliberating a verdict.

>> So they all had their minds more-or-less made up, when they left the jury
box.  And every last one of them just happened to believe OJ was
innocent...!?!  Either that, or the ones that had some doubts about his
innocence realized that there was no way they were ever going to reason with
the remainder, and decided to go along with the decision.

>> Given the difference of opinion throughout the country, it is my best
guess that this wasn't the open-and-shut case that most 4-hour deliberations
are.  And regardless of whether there was verbal communication of guilt or
innocence prior to the deliberations (which I understand is against the law)
you wouldn't have to be any wizard of non-verbals to be able to tell if one
of your fellow jurists, who for whatever reason had decided OJ was innocent,
was NEVER going to listen to any evidence to the contrary.  If one juror has
let it be known, one way or the other, that they are unwilling to budge on
their position...  Well...  If you were a jurist in that situation, where
you really DID have doubts about OJ's innocence, you're facing a decision:
innocent, or hung jury.  Not good choices.

>> In my view, it is certainly possible to find reasonable doubt in all
almost any murder cases, since the murderers rarely confess, and then stick
to their plea, and then admit they were in their right minds, responsible
and guilty.  And there are rarely movie cameras running, when the act is
committed.

>> Just as I've seen eyewitness testimony, that convicted a man, and later
DNA evidenced proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the eyewitness
testimony was confused.

>> So it IS possible that the jurists made their best determination, from
the evidence, and all 12 found reasonable doubt.  Given that the rest of the
country didn't see it in anything close to that same proportion (unanimous)
I find that doubtful, but possible.

>> Point is still, the high-priced team of defense lawyers may also have
somehow swayed them from seeing the facts clearly.



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 was ONLY referring to the OJ case.


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.

>> I hope it's not Pollyanna, because I agree.



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.

>> Have never heard it said any better...



>(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.

>> Knowwhatchamean...  (I'm trying to stay away from controversial topics
like "The Ancient Debate" on using the RPG Primary Cycle...  ROFLMAO...!
Where's my Depends when I need them...!)   I'll cross-post this then.



Doug

>> James Jay Toran (jt)