circumstantial, who would you want on the jury? What if you had 12 climatologists on the jury - would you have the same chance as a public school teacher accused of molesting a student with 12 religious conservatives on the jury.
2007-11-29 17:51:46 · 7 answers · asked by Ben O 6 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
(edit) No I didn't expect that from you Bob, but if I knew what you were going to say, I would hardly be interested in reading your answers.
If you were innocent why wouldn't you want intelligent republicans on the jury? Are republicans irrational in your personal paradigm?
2007-11-29 18:26:51 · update #1
Depends.
If I was innocent I'd want the climatologists. They could look at the facts objectively and make an unbiased decision. They'd understand and apply the concept of "reasonable doubt".
If I was guilty I'd want a jury composed of global warming deniers, and a lawyer who could make an emotional argument that the trial was a government conspiracy. It wouldn't matter what the facts were then.
Not exactly the answer you had in mind, eh? But, can you dispute my logic? :-)
EDIT - Republicans would be fine, if I was innocent. But they'd need to be intelligent and factual. Someone like Newt Gingrich or Rudy Guiliani would be fine. Idealogues like Senator Inhofe or Glenn Beck wouldn't. Who knows what they would do and why?
And I said "climatologists". That doesn't exclude Republicans.
2007-11-29 18:01:37 · answer #1 · answered by Bob 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I wouldn't care who was on the jury, it is the judge's job to instruct the jury on the Process of Law. I'd want a good judge
... and 10 hairless apes and 2 "straight" trees with no leanings one way or the other on the jury
... No Bushes allowed though, even though I think the latest is a cross between a chimp and a tree!
2007-11-29 19:29:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
if those were the only two choices for jurors? very tough..the climatologists would sentence me to lethal injection-of an overdose of unsubstantiated bullshit, and the religeous conservatives would beat me over the head with the bible before flipping the power switch that was already connected to the juror box.[seriously, some thing has to be decided about child molester creeps-they are wired wrong in the brain] very interesting question though!
2007-11-29 19:24:30 · answer #3 · answered by soundchaser 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Having 12 twelve climatologists would be a bad thing, considering the study of climatology is in it's infancy, and there is no clear understanding of how Earth's climate works, the title of Climatologists would mean very little. Perhaps in another century that title might have more meaning.
2007-11-29 23:28:15 · answer #4 · answered by Tomcat 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I would want republicans because they are all for big oil money they could care less about the environment... check out currrent alaska politics. Republicans have lobbied to open ANWR for decades despite the very real threat to the envirnoment. Republicans are for money, progress and money, if it was cost effective to cross the EPA they will be cool.
2007-11-29 17:56:48 · answer #5 · answered by EmmaRoo 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Oh, I guess I'd just come along quietly and turn myself in. No trial necessary. I plead guilty. I don't recycle cans, unless there's spare change in it for me.
2007-11-29 17:56:05 · answer #6 · answered by scruffycat 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure I want climatologists speculating and jumping to conclusions (worst case scenarios) to determine my fate.
2007-11-30 02:15:12 · answer #7 · answered by Larry 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋