Cosby thought unconscious woman....

[Tero]

He should have asked the jury if they would like some pills.

[Scot Dutchy]

Just money. How much did he pay the jury? If he paid half a million to each juror that is back pocket money to him.

[laklak]

I'd have done it for a quarter mil.

[Scot Dutchy]

Cheapskate.

[laklak]

Nah, I'm just realistic. A quarter mil, at my age, is like 10 mil to a 21 year old.

[Scot Dutchy]

He would only have to nobble one under the American system? Probably made it two for safety sake.

[Forty Two]

Well, the odds of him getting away with bribing jurors is rather slim. Just attempting it poses a high risk of a juror reporting it. It's a major crime. I doubt his legal staff would be involved.

Nevertheless, the notion of a unanimous verdict makes good sense. It's not better to have a system that allows a plurality verdict to send people to prison. "It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth. I don't really know what the truth is. I don't suppose anybody will ever really know. Nine of us now seem to feel that the defendant is innocent, but we're just gambling on probabilities - we may be wrong. We may be trying to let a guilty man go free, I don't know. Nobody really can. But we have a reasonable doubt, and that's something that's very valuable in our system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it's sure." - Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men.

I can't see how it is an advantage for a system to allow the State to convict people for serious felonies on a majority verdict or even a supermajority verdict of 6, 9 or 12 people. Even if there is a jury of 12, if one or two people find reasonable doubt, does that not provide some indication that reasonable minds can differ? If reasonable minds can differ, wouldn't that suggest that there is reasonable doubt?

I don't know what's going on in this case. From all the material I've read, it sure sounds like he's guilty. But, if followed, hard cases make bad law, and if the suggestion is that the problem is that a jury in a serious criminal case must render a unanimous verdict, then I have to respectfully disagree. It might make it easier for the state to convict, and then we might avoid some difficult and controversial cases, but the fundamental principle of a jury not sending someone to prison unless it is sure might as well be cast aside.

There are other, non-unanimous, remedies available, where an accuser can sue civilly for money damages associated with the same conduct, and even if the accused is acquitted criminally, a civil verdict can be awarded.

Doing away with unanimous verdicts would basically increase the likelihood of innocent defendants being put away. The burden of proof and the jury are checks on State power, so that the State may not merely jail who it accuses. The more of these protections that are eliminated, the worse it is for the little guy.

[rainbow]

Even if there is a jury of 12, if one or two people find reasonable doubt, does that not provide some indication that reasonable minds can differ? If reasonable minds can differ, wouldn't that suggest that there is reasonable doubt?

No true Scotsman would say that.


See?

[Forty Two]

Even if there is a jury of 12, if one or two people find reasonable doubt, does that not provide some indication that reasonable minds can differ? If reasonable minds can differ, wouldn't that suggest that there is reasonable doubt?

No true Scotsman would say that.


See?

State your thought explicitly and directly, not obliquely. Are you suggesting that "If reasonable minds can differ, wouldn't that suggest that there is reasonable doubt?" is answered "no, it does not suggest that there is reasonable doubt?" Or, perhaps "may be" reasonable doubt? What, exactly, are you arguing?

[Scot Dutchy]

Do you have reasonable minds especially when there is money to made especially in a lousy legal system?

[Forty Two]

Do you have reasonable minds especially when there is money to made especially in a lousy legal system?

I'm fairly sure that you have no idea what you're talking about.

But feel free to describe what money is to be made here, and what specific aspects of the legal system you believe are lousy and why.

[Scot Dutchy]

Do you have reasonable minds especially when there is money to made especially in a lousy legal system?

I'm fairly sure that you have no idea what you're talking about.

But feel free to describe what money is to be made here, and what specific aspects of the legal system you believe are lousy and why.

Come on it is well none you have a lovely corrupt system with a law for the rich and law for the poor. You also have a lousy jury system. Your system could not care a damn about truth just getting the guy off anyway you can. Ever looked at the number of miscarriages of justice in your lovely country. Man corruption is so bloody high. He who pays the most wins.

[rainbow]

Even if there is a jury of 12, if one or two people find reasonable doubt, does that not provide some indication that reasonable minds can differ? If reasonable minds can differ, wouldn't that suggest that there is reasonable doubt?

No true Scotsman would say that.


See?

State your thought explicitly and directly, not obliquely. Are you suggesting that "If reasonable minds can differ, wouldn't that suggest that there is reasonable doubt?" is answered "no, it does not suggest that there is reasonable doubt?" Or, perhaps "may be" reasonable doubt? What, exactly, are you arguing?

I'm not arguing anything.

I'm pointing out that you used circular reasoning, based on the fallacy of ambiguity.

Google is right at your fingertips if you want to understand where you went wrong.

[Forty Two]

Do you have reasonable minds especially when there is money to made especially in a lousy legal system?

I'm fairly sure that you have no idea what you're talking about.

But feel free to describe what money is to be made here, and what specific aspects of the legal system you believe are lousy and why.

Come on it is well none you have a lovely corrupt system with a law for the rich and law for the poor. You also have a lousy jury system. Your system could not care a damn about truth just getting the guy off anyway you can. Ever looked at the number of miscarriages of justice in your lovely country. Man corruption is so bloody high. He who pays the most wins.

1. It's well known that there is some corruption in almost all systems, legal and otherwise. The key here on this issue is why you think the US system is a "corrupt system with a law for the rich and law for the poor." If the issue is that people with more money have more resources, that's true in any system. Do you think Geert Wilders didn't have a financial advantage over the average citizen when he was prosecuted?

2. You are under the impression that the "system" doesn't care about truth, just getting the guy off? So, you think that in the US we have a benign state that doesn't care about putting people the police say are criminals in jail? The "system" is set up to find the accused innocent? The very notion is absurd. Being arrested is a very risky proposition, and the conviction rates are high. Having a defense attorney who is dedicated to vetting the prosecution's evidence and presenting the accused's case, not the prosecution's case, is a good thing, not a bad thing. It's an ADVANTAGE for the little guy. I mean, your position appears to be that to take away the right to counsel and the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof, etc. would make the little guy safer from wrongful prosecution? Are you really thinking this through?

3. He who pays the most wins? Is that why Bernie Madoff is in jail? Martha Stewart? What "miscarriages of justice" are you talking about, and how do you know that there are more of them in the US than in other countries? Obviously, there are miscarriages of justice, but how in the world would changing the rule from a unanimous jury verdict to "10 votes is enough" prevent miscarriages? Wouldn't there be miscarriages in the form of putting more innocent people in jail?

4. Why don't you admit that you have no idea if, in reality, the US has more corruption or miscarriages of justice than other western countries? You have no numbers, no stats, no empirical evidence - just your usual prejudice. Yes?

[Forty Two]

Even if there is a jury of 12, if one or two people find reasonable doubt, does that not provide some indication that reasonable minds can differ? If reasonable minds can differ, wouldn't that suggest that there is reasonable doubt?

No true Scotsman would say that.


See?

State your thought explicitly and directly, not obliquely. Are you suggesting that "If reasonable minds can differ, wouldn't that suggest that there is reasonable doubt?" is answered "no, it does not suggest that there is reasonable doubt?" Or, perhaps "may be" reasonable doubt? What, exactly, are you arguing?

I'm not arguing anything.

I'm pointing out that you used circular reasoning, based on the fallacy of ambiguity.

Google is right at your fingertips if you want to understand where you went wrong.

You're not arguing anything, and you want me to google a fallacy I did not commit. Either explain your own position, or don't. I don't care. But, I'm not doing it for you. Your tactic is used by those who just want to hand-wave and declare someone wrong, without backing up your position.