Supporters of the person would just vote non-guilty and opponents would just vote guilty. It would just result in hung juries over and over.
That’s a bit cynical, isn’t it?
I can still support a party or individual, but admit they have done something wrong. Likewise, I can oppose a party or individual, and find they have done no wrong in a particular instance.
It’s exactly this blind following and absence of critical thinking or pragmatism that is causing the world to become so dangerously polarised.
fubo@lemmy.world 1 year ago
An “impartial” jury doesn’t mean one where every member is ignorant or has no prior opinion.
It’s one where the members are willing to set aside their previous knowledge and opinions and evaluate the evidence that’s presented to them.
mySFWaccount@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
How does the court system evaluate that? That seems like a super hard thing to check.
fubo@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Jury selection usually involves asking the prospective jurors various questions, with the lawyers on each side being allowed to dismiss jurors they think will be biased.
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 year ago
jury selection is a very tedious process where every juror is interviewed by the judge and possibly both sides. They get whittled down by the court before being fully assigned, and then the prosecution and defense get to boot a certain number of jurors.
advising on jury selection is actually very lucrative business with both sides dishing out massive amounts of cash to make those checks.
in any case, in this situation, it’s not that they’re looking for unbiased jurors, it’s that they’re looking to balance out the biases of the individual jurors with jurors of apposing bias. I mean, you’d have to be living under a rock at this point to not have a bias as far as trump is concerned.
twistypencil@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Voir dire is the process, if you lie you go to jail
NutWrench@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The problem with Trump is that he’s a known quantity to anyone who has lived on Earth for the last 50 years. He’s a compulsive liar, literally about everything and a vile, disgusting person, as well.
Knowing that, I would find it impossible to “just consider the facts” and believe that maybe . . . just maybe, this is the one time he’s telling the truth.
Tsavo43@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Just because you don’t agree with him doesn’t make what he says a lie. Biden has been caught lying nonstop about his son’s business and I’ll bet that you’re just fine with it.
khepri@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Thankfully we put career criminals, well-known in their communities, who people have heard of, on trial on the time. Could you imagine if “I’m too famous as a dirtbag to be tried by a jury of my peers” was a defense?
khepri@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Absolutely right. “Impartial” doesn’t mean you’ve never heard of the person, or never seen them on the news, or don’t live near them, or have no opinion of them, or haven’t heard or believe things about what they’ve done. It’s a classic shithead defense to try and tell a judge “the paper did a piece on my crimes and everyone read it, so I can’t get a fair trial!!” Well guess what, that never works, for anyone, ever. There is no such thing as “too famous” for justice, there is no such thing as “too infamous” for justice. And there is no such thing as “the vast majority of people in NY and DC and GA hate me so badly because of who I am and what I’ve done that no one in those states can be allowed to judge me for my acts.”