2007-12-17 08:23:01 · 12 answers · asked by nanny 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
In the event of a conviction-- do you think the defendant deserves a retrial or an overturned conviction? Can you cite and cases where this has happened?
2007-12-17 09:49:30 · update #1
Can you site ANY cases where this has happened? Sorry for the mistype!
2007-12-17 09:53:36 · update #2
He or she probably can't be truly impartial.
2007-12-17 08:27:23 · answer #1 · answered by Annie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It just depends on that person. I was molested by my maturnal grandfather as a child and raped by a peer when I was 16. I would be impartial. I've accepted what has happened to me and I'm not on a vengence rant to get everyman in the world because I was hurt. Every situation is different and that person might actually be innocent. Remember innocent until proven guilty.
2007-12-17 08:32:05 · answer #2 · answered by jdecorse25 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Some could. Some could not.
I can only speak for myself. I would not want the crimes that were perpetrated against me to be perpetrated against any other person. I would want the person held to account if they were guilty. HOWEVER, I also know how truly devastating the results are, and want the RIGHT person held to account. I would want everything nailed down even tighter than someone else might, because I want to know that the real criminal is behind bars, rather than getting away with the crime and living free to hurt another while someone innocent languished in jail.
2007-12-17 08:45:28 · answer #3 · answered by karen star 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends. Many people cling to the wrongs done to them forever, while others move on and live life.
Statistically in a room of 100 people 40 of them will have been molested in their life or a victim of a sexual assualt. In the voire dire the attorney for the defense would likely try to eliminate survivors of abuse in order to give a fair trial. The reality is that not everyone of those 40 will be vindictive or out to get everyone accused of abuse. Many have dealt with it and moved on with their lives -- any anger they have is directed at their perp not society in general.
2007-12-17 08:56:30 · answer #4 · answered by Susie D 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
One doesn't need to be impartial, one needs to listen to all the evidence and consider it fairly.
Layers are given a number of challenges in which they prevent someone from being on the jury for any reason or no reason at all. Judges too have latitude in this area.
Is your question anything more then hypothetical?
2007-12-17 08:28:41 · answer #5 · answered by Barry C 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
By setting their past experiences to the side, and judging the case on it's own merits. Having a traumatic childhood experience doesn't mean a person can't still grow up to be a rational human being!
2007-12-17 08:29:57 · answer #6 · answered by Beardog 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
She proably can't - which is why a defense attorney would probably try to keep her off the jury. Finding out stuff like that is the purpose of voir dire.
Richard
2007-12-17 08:30:02 · answer #7 · answered by rickinnocal 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Blame it on an attorney. Both the prosecution and Defense are allowed to turn down jurors. Jurors are also asked if they have had a crime committed against them.
2007-12-17 08:31:17 · answer #8 · answered by sensible_man 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
considering that 1 in 4 people have been sexually molested as kids ,,,,if it was a jury of peers the ration would be the same as in the culture.
but you are right they probably want to hang someone
2007-12-17 08:28:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It replaced into stupid. the youngster who accused him saved changing the tale of ways it befell or the place it befell. they are liers. they are very undesirable human beings and characteristic a foul history. They even messed with George Lopez in the previous MJ. Golddiggers.. he's often with babies with the aid of fact he loves them. Why is it so stressful to have faith that a guy might desire to truthfully love babies that plenty with none sexual relatives. He on no account had a adolescence of his very own so he desires to grant each and every of the babies the final adolescence he on no account had. The accuser had maximum cancers, so he replaced into attempting to help him. He did help him. in the previous the youngster accused him, he reported that Michael "cured" him. it is not approximately "women human beings" purely, it fairly is approximately all adults. Michael reported he might somewhat be with babies than with adults. He did have a love life, he purely saved it very inner maximum.
2016-11-03 21:20:41 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on what kind of case and how similar it is to the childhood experience. (For instance, if it's a case of solicitation or prostitution, it may not be relevant.)
2007-12-17 08:29:09 · answer #11 · answered by scottclear 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋