Mississippi Justice

[Flyboy]

Could this happen here.

Curtis Flowers has been on death row for thirteen years and has had six trials. At his last trial, one juror was jailed because he refused to find the accused guilty.

Must be Mississippi style justice.

Curtis Flowers faces 6th trial for the same crime

Anyone who thinks the death penalty is a good thing, think again. They seem determined to find him guilty, no matter what the cost, no matter what the reasons, no matter what the evidence. If he is guilty then he deserves to go to prison for his crime, but I suspect that if he is ever found guilty, it will not be because of the evidence, but because of the determination of the judge, the prosecution and police.

[SMG]

It may have something to do with the white sheets, & hoods the other jurors were wearing, although the burning cross outside could be a giveaway.

On a serious note, 4 murders is pretty bad, & it is possible he just may be guilty!

[papa smurf]

well its another country's rules its none of our business we have no right to judge .

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Could this happen here.

Curtis Flowers has been on death row for thirteen years and has had six trials. At his last trial, one juror was jailed because he refused to find the accused guilty.

Must be Mississippi style justice.

Curtis Flowers faces 6th trial for the same crime

Anyone who thinks the death penalty is a good thing, think again. They seem determined to find him guilty, no matter what the cost, no matter what the reasons, no matter what the evidence. If he is guilty then he deserves to go to prison for his crime, but I suspect that if he is ever found guilty, it will not be because of the evidence, but because of the determination of the judge, the prosecution and police.

To put it bluntly, I seriously doubt that a case that has been so badly handled by the prosecution could happen in this country.

Quoting from the BBC article....

The local district attorney, desperate to score a conviction in such a high-profile case, has played it dirty to win.

One of his tricks, exposed by a refreshingly impartial Mississippi Supreme Court, was to fiddle the jury selection to exclude black jurors.

Considering that in the UK the juror's are selected in the courtroom, with the agreement of both the Prosecution and the Defence Barristers, I expect there would be serious questions asked if the jury was not representative of the demographics of the area....

This article does not make me reconsider the death penalty, nor my favour of its reintroduction. What it does make me happy about, is that I do not live it the US....

[nomadking]

For his defence, the forensic evidence against him is wafer thin, and some witness evidence is contentious.

So it's ok to have jurors that will find someone not guilty purely because they are also black? The studies show that happens with jurors even in this country. Also studies show that a Black psychiatric patient is more likely to be released when they are still a danger to the public.

Four people were murdered, somebody did that. It wasn't group suicide or an accident.

Remember that OJ only got off the murder conviction because the two non-black jurors who thought he was guilty but didn't want to spend another year or more of being sequestered(effectively imprisoned, but with less rights) trying to persuade the black jurors.

[SMG]

It reminds me of the film, "My cousin Vinny", when selecting jurors, the prosecution asks one woman, "if they are found guilty, what would be penalty"! The woman replies "Fry them". The prosecution finds that she is suitable.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by SMG

It reminds me of the film, "My cousin Vinny", when selecting jurors, the prosecution asks one woman, "if they are found guilty, what would be penalty"! The woman replies "Fry them". The prosecution finds that she is suitable.

That is because you can't have a juror that is not prepared to find someone guilty regardless of the evidence, just because they don't agree with the death penalty or because of the colour of the defendant.

Post removed.

Originally Posted by nomadking

So it's ok to have jurors that will find someone not guilty purely because they are also black? The studies show that happens with jurors even in this country. Also studies show that a Black psychiatric patient is more likely to be released when they are still a danger to the public.

Four people were murdered, somebody did that. It wasn't group suicide or an accident.

Remember that OJ only got off the murder conviction because the two non-black jurors who thought he was guilty but didn't want to spend another year or more of being sequestered(effectively imprisoned, but with less rights) trying to persuade the black jurors.

Link

By November 3, an initial jury of twelve had been selected. The jury consisted of 8 blacks, 2 Hispanics, 1 half-Caucasian/half Native American, and 1 Caucasian female

And it was eight women and four men.

and

Link

October 2, 1995 After less than four hours, jury announces that it has reached a verdict

and it was a unanimous decision.

[Niles Crane]

Originally Posted by Earl of Bronze

Post removed.

Why?

Is your argument no longer valid now you've realised it was nomadking posting something you apparently disagreed with, not Flyboy?

Your reactionary rant and dig at Flyboy is pretty hypocritical, bearing in mind that seems to be what you've been criticising him for.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Earl of Bronze

To put it bluntly, I seriously doubt that a case that has been so badly handled by the prosecution could happen in this country.


Considering that in the UK the juror's are selected in the courtroom, with the agreement of both the Prosecution and the Defence Barristers, I expect there would be serious questions asked if the jury was not representative of the demographics of the area....

I take it you were asleep during the diplock and supergrass systems here in Northern Ireland?

Originally Posted by Niles Crane

Why?

Is your argument no longer valid now you've realised it was nomadking posting something you apparently disagreed with, not Flyboy?

Your reactionary rant and dig at Flyboy is pretty hypocritical, bearing in mind that seems to be what you've been criticising him for.

Actually Niles, I realised as soon as I posted how badly I'd screwed up.

Not only did I misread the post, but as you point out, I also misread the name of the poster. Once I realised how much of a balls-up I'd made, I tried to edit my post. In the end I had to give up as I'd made such a mess of it from the beginning I felt it better to remove the post.

---------- Post added at 01:20 ---------- Previous post was at 01:05 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I take it you were asleep during the diplock and supergrass systems here in Northern Ireland?

In reply to your link about Diplock Courts in Northern Ireland during the Troubles I'll quote wikipedia back to you.....

The Diplock courts were a type of court established by the Government in Northern Ireland in 1972, in an attempt to overcome widespread jury intimidation associated with the Troubles

So, in the case of an ordinary criminal prosecution for murder, why would trial by dury be suspended? The reasons for the use of no jury trials under the Diplock system was to deal with HM v's terrorists. Who would have otherwise intimmidated or perhaps murdered jurers or their families....

In the cases prosecuted under the Supergrass scheme, again we are talking about HM v's terrorists. Not a simple criminal prosecution for murder. IIRC, and I may well be wrong as its quite some time since the last Supergrass Trial, 3 Judges sat instead of a jury.... But to be honest thats a vague memory....

While I can see why you are drawing the parrallels you are drawing, I don't think they really stand up to scrutiny. As far as I can see the american defendant may, or may not have killed 4 people in a crime of passion. But I see nothing in the report linked by Flyboy to suggest terrorism.... Ergo, Diplock and Supergrass would not be revived for a trial of his kind in the UK IMHO....

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Earl of Bronze

.....So, in the case of an ordinary criminal prosecution for murder, why would trial by dury be suspended?

While I can see why you are drawing the parrallels you are drawing, I don't think they really stand up to scrutiny. As far as I can see the american defendant may, or may not have killed 4 people in a crime of passion. But I see nothing in the report linked by Flyboy to suggest terrorism.... Ergo, Diplock and Supergrass would not be revived for a trial of his kind in the UK IMHO....

That changed on June 18th this year with the approval of the use of trial without jury (a Diplock court by any other definition), notably not for murder.

I wasn't specifically citing the diplock and supergrass systems as anything other than what they were intended but rather I was challenging the assumption that British judicial systems and processes are in any way "better" than other systems when it comes to dealing with certain crimes.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

That changed on June 18th this year with the approval of the use of trial without jury (a Diplock court by any other definition), notably not for murder.

I wasn't specifically citing the diplock and supergrass systems as anything other than what they were intended but rather I was challenging the assumption that British judicial systems and processes are in any way "better" than other systems when it comes to dealing with certain crimes.

I sit corrected, I had forgotten about this rulling.

[BBKing]

well its another country's rules its none of our business we have no right to judge .

Do you think this applies to the growing international unease (particularly in the USA) at the way rich people with something to hide are using the English libel laws to intimidate whistle blowers and shut down free speech? The world's international these days.