2007-01-17 07:56:54 · 9 answers · asked by kissmybum 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Makes me wonder about jurors midset DURING the trial.....what their intentions are. Just like in the M. Jackson case. Being part of "high profile" trials could mean potential windfalls...in the future.
2007-01-17 08:05:04 · update #1
oops...mindset*
2007-01-17 08:05:23 · update #2
defense attorney's get a fee for there services....genearlly speaking they can not right a book re: a client.
Jurors "involved" in the trial have different roles than the media and the public.
2007-01-17 08:10:58 · update #3
LOL....so many typo's.Sorry....writing too fast.
2007-01-17 08:13:00 · update #4
There are laws that prevent criminals from gaining from their crimes.
They should enforce this on all involved in a trial.
2007-01-17 08:00:28 · answer #1 · answered by MЯ BAIT™ 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think a crime is a misfortune. I also don't think its unethical and it could be an interesting literary piece. this was a hard case and like all caes the media had limited info, the jury had more info day by day, and most people don't have every last bit of info. this book could really show all the aspectes (the ones that mattered because they were part of the trial) of the case.
how about, is it unethical for a criminal to write a book in prison and make at least some money from it- if not them personally than their families?
2007-01-17 17:41:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A lot of others capitalized on it - newspapers, magazines, TV networks. Why not the jurors as well? Drama is a powerful attractor for humans. Other examples of capitalizing on the misfortune of others include all the true crime books, the TV show COPS, the movie Titanic (that was a huge misfortune, right?) as well as the documentaries that make money on it. How about a film like Schindler's List? Spielberg made a heck of a lot of money capitalizing on one of the most horrific tragedies of modern times.
Is it morally right or wrong? I don't know. I tend to think in most cases it is morally neutral. It moves into the category of being wrong when the person who caused the tragedy is capitalizing on it.
2007-01-17 16:02:20 · answer #3 · answered by Musmanno 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They would only be capitalizing on someone else's misfortune indirectly. They wrote about their experience as a juror. I think it is OK. I'd rather them benefit from writing a book than him. Although legally criminals can write books about themselves and make money, I think it's wrong.
2007-01-17 16:06:28 · answer #4 · answered by smellyfoot ™ 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Misfortune? Scott Peterson brutally murdered his pregnant wife on Christmas Eve. How is that his "misfortune"? If he caused it himself, I don't think it qualifies. These people (the jurors) have information that some people want. Why shouldn't they make money from it?
2007-01-17 16:01:39 · answer #5 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, if OJ can write a book, and many of his jurors did as well...then why not the Peterson jury?
2007-01-17 16:00:23 · answer #6 · answered by FRANKFUSS 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
no. jurors do it though,it is the 15 minutes of fame. i believe they didn't give much thought about how they would feel if it personally affected them.
2007-01-17 16:00:44 · answer #7 · answered by J Q Public 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Peterson is sick with sin.
2007-01-17 16:00:08 · answer #8 · answered by Shayna 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Should defense lawyers capitalize on it?
2007-01-17 16:04:42 · answer #9 · answered by BAGOFSWAGS 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋