UNDERSTANDING THE JURY SYSTEM? PART 3.

What must be understood about a Jury, and convincing them as an Attorney to decide in Their Clients Favor, is NOT JUST a Lesson in Pointing Out;

-  How much better your PHYSICAL EVIDENCE is in Establishing Truth.

-  The Veracity of the Witnesses who Testify on behalf of your Client.

-  How the Opposition has Failed to provide Sufficient Evidence, along with no Compelling Testimony, to decide in Their Favor.

The Above, are on the Surface, what people are led to believe is the Proper Function of a Trial Setting.  That both sides present the Evidence, Offer Opposing Conclusions on what it means, and after Instruction by the Trial Judge, retire to decide on a Just and Fair Verdict.

Yes, all of the Above can and will probably be brought out during the Trial., but it is not just CONTENT THAT MATTERS, BUT PRESENTATION.  HOW INFORMATION IS GIVEN TO THE JURY,  CAN BE JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE EVIDENCE ITSELF.

Now if a Courtroom/Trial setting was set up to just Determine the Most Accurate Interpretation of the Evidence, and Rendering the Most Just Decision, the Criminal Justice System in the U.S would be much different.

WHY?

1)  A JURY IS DRAWN FROM MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, AND SITTING ONE IS NOT BASED ON ANY ABILITIES THAT POTENTIAL JURORS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE.

2)  PICKING THE MEMBERS OF A JURY, IS SUBJECT TO PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES BY EITHER ATTORNEY.  QUITE SIMPLY, THIS MEANS DISMISSING INDIVIDUALS REGARDLESS OF THE CAPABILITIES THEY MAY HAVE IN EVALUATING THE MERITS OF EACH SIDE, AND RENDERING A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL VERDICT.

3)  WHILE POTENTIAL JURORS ARE SUPPOSE TO ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS HONESTLY, THOSE WHO HOLD HATEFUL AND IRRATIONAL PREJUDICES MAY SEE NO REASON TO LET THEM KNOWN TO THE COURT.

4)  THE EXTENT TO WHICH PUBLIC OPINION MAY WEIGH ON ANY JURORS MIND, AFFECTING THEIR JUDGMENT.  THIS INCLUDES THE PERCEPTION THAT THE COMMUNITY MAY HAVE ABOUT THE CASE, AND HOW RESIDENT JURORS MAY BE TREATED AFTER THE TRIAL.

LOOK FOR MORE ON THIS SUBJECT.

FEATURE ARTICLES. WHAT PROGRESSIVES MUST LEARN. PT 12. LESSONS FROM KENTUCKY.

As Kim Davis returns to Work as a County Clerk in Kentucky, still insisting that she will not Issue Marriage Licenses to Same Sex Couples, it appears her Moment in the Spotlight may be Fading. 

Deputy Clerks, who are willing to do the Job They're being Paid For, are picking up the Slack.  It seems Licenses will still be Valid even without her Signature, at least for the Time Being.

However, the Real Message to Take from this, is the Knowledge that Some Americans care nothing for the Constitution, and the FREEDOMS IT GUARANTEES. Kim Davis is probably a Simple Pawn who is being used

by Ultra- Conservatives to Create Controversy, and Distract Voters from REAL ISSUES, SO HOPEFULLY THEY WILL FORGET THE PROGRESS THAT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED IN THE LAST FEW YEARS.

Unfortunately, for them, YOU CAN IGNORE THE BODY OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, BUT ERASING IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.

Consider This, FROM ARTICLE 6:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

In what has to be one of the Most Unique Pieces of HYPOCRISY IN U.S. HISTORY, WE ARE LEFT WITH THE FOLLOWING;

ARTICLE 6 CLEARLY ASSERTS THIS MAXIM: THAT NO PERSON CAN BE DISQUALIFIED OR PREVENTED FROM HOLDING OFFICE BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.  A VOW TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, AND SUPPORT IT,  IS REQUIRED TO BE AN OFFICE HOLDER.

KIM DAVIS CAN HATE HOMOSEXUALITY, CALL IT IMMORAL AND SO ON....THAT CANNOT BE USED AGAINST HER, FOR IT WOULD BE A "RELIGIOUS TEST."  PERSONAL FAITH CANNOT BE USED TO BARR ANYONE FROM HOLDING OFFICE.

SO WHAT HAS SHE, AND THOSE WHO THINK LIKE HER DONE?  THEY HAVE CREATED A REQUIREMENT OF THEIR OWN.

THAT SHE WILL PERFORM HER DUTIES, AND UPHOLD THE DOCUMENT SHE VOWED TO SUPPORT, ONLY IF IT PASSES HER "RELIGIOUS TEST."

IN OTHER WORDS, CONSTITUTIONALLY SHE CANNOT 

BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE FOR HER BELIEFS,

HOWEVER, SHE CLAIMS IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO IGNORE AND DISREGARD CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS, IF IT VIOLATES THOSE SAME BELIEFS.

Date- 9/16/2015.

FEATURE ARTICLES. THE POLITICS OF PREJUDICE. PT 2.

The POLITICS OF PREJUDICE Works because it Allows REASON AND

LOGIC TO BE DISCARDED, IN FAVOR OF INNUENDO, RUMOR AND STEREOTYPES.

In Many Cases, it is a FORM OF TRUTH BY ASSOCIATION, A LOGICAL 

FALLACY THAT IS SO PREVALENT IN SOCIETY TODAY, THAT EVEN 

WHEN CONFRONTED WITH ITS USE AGAINST SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS 

AND GROUPS, SOME PEOPLE WILL STILL BELIEVE THAT ANY 

CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY THIS IRRATIONAL MINDSET SHOULD BE

CONSIDERED FACTUAL OR TRUE.

We are not Talking About Profiling By Studying BEHAVIOR PATTERNS, EDUCATION, EARLY HOME LIFE AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS etc,. that may be able to give us an UNDERSTANDING OF A SINGLE INDIVIDUALS ACTIONS OR MOTIVATIONS, BUT THE:

ATTRIBUTION OF NEGATIVE TRAITS TO AN ENTIRE RACIAL, ETHNIC, NATIONALITY, OR EVEN GENDER GROUP BY FOCUSING ON, AND SENSATIONALIZING, THE ACTIONS OF A FEW, AND USING THESE INCIDENTS TO DISCRIMINATE, OR DENY EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY AND FAIR TREATMENT, TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE CONSIDERED MEMBERS OF THIS PARTICULAR GROUP.

Perhaps the Most Effective Use of this Fallacy, by INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS WITH A SPECIFIC AGENDA WHO CARE LITTLE ABOUT HOW IT IS ACHIEVED, IS TO TARGET MEMBERS OF SOCIETY WHO HARBOR PREJUDICIAL ATTITUDES, BUT CANNOT FIND A COHERENT REASON TO CONVINCE OTHERS THAT THESE BELIEFS SHOULD BE LEGISLATED INTO LAW.  IT IS THE:

                               JUSTIFIABLE EXCUSE DEFENSE.

We will look at this in an Upcoming Post.

FEATURE ARTICLES. THE POLITICS OF PREJUDICE. PT 1.

If There is one thing we can Take from Recent National Political Campaigns, it is that PREJUDICE, IN ALL ITS FORMS, STILL SHOWS US WHY THE REAL STUMBLING BLOCK TO CAMPAIGN REFORM IS THE VOTER, NOT THE POLITICIAN.

It is still Amazing how Supporters of a Candidate, WILL STILL USE THE SAME TIRED EXCUSES TO JUSTIFY THEIR SUPPORT FOR A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL OR PARTY, EVEN WHEN IGNORANT OR IRRATIONAL COMMENTS ARE MADE PUBLIC.

For Example:

 "(HE OR SHE) IS JUST SAYING WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK."

-  Really, and this ASSERTION IS ARRIVED AT BY....WHAT?

Maybe we should just take Their Word for it.

"(HE OR SHE) IS NOT SCARED TO TELL THE TRUTH.  OTHER

POLITICIANS ARE AFRAID TO."

-  So this Politician and Supporters are MIND READERS, and can

Ascribe MOTIVATIONS TO RIVALS who do not Voice Similar 

Opinions.

"THEY GIVE A VOICE TO THE DISENFRANCHISED VOTER, WHO

BELIEVE THEIR CONCERNS ARE BEING IGNORED."

Please Give me an Example of any Important and\or Divisive Issue

that does not have any Politicians or Pacs Championing One Side

or the Other, Deliberately Ignoring a Specific Segment of the Population.

END PT 1.