The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Religion & Culture / Atheist Fools


Subject:  Re: Hot Coffee Date:  3/4/2013  6:16 AM
Author:  NailThatJello Number:  418817 of 507836

deliberations belong in the hands of a jury, not among legislators trying to impose limitations on what a jury can award. To do otherwise basically says we don't trust our jury system, and instead trust limits imposed by legislators who are influenced (or out-right purchased) by corporate lobbying groups. I'll stick with the juries, thank-you-very-much

I wouldn't give our legal system to legislators either. Yes, because they are easily bought.

But you overlook the fact that nowadays, juries are also bought. If you have the money to hire a big legal team including jury consultants. A big reason OJ got off the hook is because the jury consultant did a good job for her deep pocketed client. Plus some very slick courtroom lawyering.

What kind of jury would put priority for "the glove don't fit, you must acquit" circus lawyering, over rock solid DNA evidence? A legally-rigged jury, that's what kind. That trial was a disgrace to the jury system and the judge as much or more than to the prosecution, which had a mountain of evidence that the jury chose to ignore.
Copyright 1996-2018 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us