why are the alleged crime committers allowed to be present during the selection of jurors.. i think that is ridiculous and it needs to be channged. it was my first time going to jury duty selection yesterday and i was amazed that the alleged criminal was in the court room. the jurors had their names read and gave out personal information about where they live ,where they work, where they reside, where there spouses worked, how old their children were and other personal information all while the alleged was able to take notes on the possible jurors. if i would have been called to the juror box and be questioned by the lawyers and judge i would have said anything and everything possible to be excused. the jurors are possibly puttin there lives in danger. some of the alleged could actually be criminals. and can retaliate easily with the information they are given if they are convicted. does anyone else agree with me????
2007-06-12 16:17:36 · 7 answers · asked by cj872006 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
I disagree with you. It would require a lot of scribbling in a short period of time to retain that kind of information. Even if there are buddies of the defendant in the courtroom, retaliation against a juror rarely (if ever) occurs in those circumstances. The defendant has a right to take part in every aspect of his/her trial. Say you were a defendant (people are wrongly accused all the time), wouldn't it only be fair that you be allowed to be present?
2007-06-12 16:20:23 · answer #1 · answered by Mickey Mouse Spears 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you were a consultant to an attorney, you'd know that the answers to your question depend entirely on State law... and you didn't tell us the State. In all States, sex between a 13 yr old and a 17 yr old is illegal. In some it's a felony, in some a "close in age" exemption makes it a misdemeanor. In some States it's a crime of "strict liability', which means that even if he truly believed she was older, that's no defense, in some it's a crime of "general liability" which means it's a defense to convince the jury that you believed she was old enough. In no State is the 13 year olds prior sexual history even admissable. EDIT... Whether a jury would convict or not depends ENTIRELY on what the elements of the crime are, and whether those elements are proven or not. The jury doesn't get to vote their consciences, they vote the facts. If you live in a strict liability State, then all the DA has to prove is that sex occured, and that the girl was underage at the time. NOTHING else goes to the elements of the crime. If you live in a general liability State, then he has to prove that the sex occurred, that the girl was underage, and that he did not "reasonably believe" that she was of age. You are also wrong about the girl being called to testify about her prior sexual history. The sexual history of a child is totally protected in a child molestation case. This is not like an adult rape case where the victims sex history can, under "very" unusual circumstances, be admissable. A childs is totally blocked. Richard
2016-04-01 04:40:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Right or wrong, it is our justice system. Criminals have the right to face a jury of their peers. As members of the community, we have the privilege and obligation to participate in the process.
Realistically, the defendant isn't concentrating on those details because he isn't sure if the juror will be selected or not. Do not chicken out because you cower in fear of the criminals. If you do, there will be no justice, no peace.
Calm down. This is not a novel or a TV show.
2007-06-13 06:41:24 · answer #3 · answered by marleyfu 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree completely. I served on a jury in December of 2004 and was asked some personal questions from the prosecuting attorney of why I was selected and other mentions. I still served on the jury but didn't have any trouble with the accused afterward. Yet, it can still be dangerous for many.
2007-06-12 20:50:10 · answer #4 · answered by thiajms 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well the defendant has the right to be there.
But most importantly 90% of trials involve non-violent crimes or civil disputes and you have little to worry about from the defendants. As well most defendants are not smart enough to figure out what you found so obvious.
2007-06-13 10:24:23 · answer #5 · answered by Seano 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You watch wayyyyyyyy to much crime drama TV. It's much easier to "change" witnesses memories, than to try to manipulate and control 12 jurors.
Under the law, you have the right to confront your accusers and to be informed of what is in process during legal discovery.
2007-06-12 16:30:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
YES! I AGREE. you make a good point! I
2007-06-12 16:21:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋