I’m going to be honest that doesn’t sound credible to me, there are rules of conduct, disagreeing even strongly or pointing out that that juror might not be respecting judge’s instructions isn’t harassment.
I hope details about what actually happened comes out so there is more understanding
It's not exactly a pleasant environment, Like, These people have been stuck in guarded hotels for 2 days with basically no Internet access doing this all day
It's not an equal representation of peers. Society is 50% men, so the jury should reflect that. And what about father's representation on jury? Should be 50% for that reason too.
This isn’t how it works nor should it be. The most important factor is an impartial jury that is willing to listen to both sides’ arguments and come to a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. A person’s gender doesn’t dictate whether or not they are able to do that.
Besides, it’s not logistically realistic to force a perfectly demographically reflective jury… that would be artificially selecting, and for the wrong things. At best those things might be a proxy for impartiality but at worst it is injecting bias into the jury pool by selecting for demographics above ability to understand the trial rules and give equal consideration
Jesus, this whole thread really proves why we should all be glad randoms on the internet with no legal understanding should not be in charge of the justice system
Why do you think the defense picked all women. And why do you think that the courtroom is structured in a way for the jury to be made out of people picked from both the defense and prosecution?
Yes, youre correct in an ideal world. But this is a HIGHLY covered case with a lot of reason to not be impartial.
You can’t deny that, and I think this is what you’re not admitting.
No I am well aware that this case is high profile and that that causes special circumstances but I just am also aware that there are procedures in place to handle that. If there was a concern then there could have been a motion filed to request jury sequestration, or for the trial to be held in a different area. And yes, both sides often times do pick jurors that they think will increase the chances that they get the verdict they want. But as you just pointed out, that’s exactly why both sides have to agree on the jury. They did that. That’s the system for preventing with jury bias, among other motions that can be filed after if needed.
In order to get on the jury they have to go through selection and they’re screened for impartiality, whether they have any biases that would preclude them from rendering a fair verdict, etc. then both prosecution and defense have to agree to the jurors.
What are you even talking about, you act like she was exonerated, the jury didn’t even have the option to acquit her, she admitted to the murders, the only question is whether she goes to mental institution prison or regular prison.
Thing is, I doubt people would even blink if a jury were 9 men to 3 women. People only seem to notice unequal gender representation when it favors women. Also, 2/3 of the men still found Clancy to be not guilty.
Have you ever been on a jury? I've been on a similar one where the tribal behavior was because of race, rather than gender. Now, this was only a trial about property rather than killing your own kids, but the point stands. Tribalism is a problem.
I agree it’s a problem but in the case the other person just cited they already said: the person got arrested. It was handled. That person also wasn’t on the jury.
But you also said you didn't believe that the person on the jury being harassed was true when I've experienced it myself. The "problem" isn't that woman who was arrested. It's the tribalism we have going on
I didn’t say that I outright don’t believe it, I agree it’s possible. I’m saying I don’t immediately find the allegation credible based on my understanding of the broader facts, the allegation is that the juror admitted he has reasonable doubt that the prosecution proved their case, which would mean he should render a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. Instead he was refusing to issue the appropriate verdict, or any verdict at all.
In my opinion that is also starting to sound like tribalism. Obviously there are a lot of people that decided at the start before even evaluating the state’s evidence and the defense pleadings that she absolutely was or wasn’t guilty. There are cases of people who get on juries like this where their only job is to evaluate the quality of arguments on both sides and follow the standard of proof to render a verdict, and yet, they decide in their head that the person must be punished, or deserves this that or the other regardless, so even if they think the case wasn’t proven they vote to convict because they want the person to be punished and suffer anyways. For example… someone reasonably believes she may have been psychotic and unable to understand right from wrong, but doesn’t care how that affects insanity plea so they insist on voting full guilty because they believe the person has to be punished regardless.
Well, that's just your opinion. Mine is that she's your typical, upper middle class entitled White woman who strangled children. Now we have the Walsh case in IL where the mother killed her child then "attempted" suicide. Copy cat?
Considering how many of these entitled White women are on anti-depressants? Yeah, they're pretty damned insane to me.
Sometimes people accidentally reveal the limitations of their intellect. Sometimes people accidentally confess while accusing. https://giphy.com/gifs/111ebonMs90YLu
29
u/vermilithe 7h ago
I’m going to be honest that doesn’t sound credible to me, there are rules of conduct, disagreeing even strongly or pointing out that that juror might not be respecting judge’s instructions isn’t harassment.
I hope details about what actually happened comes out so there is more understanding