Replies

Rediculous! Our justice system is in a sad shape already and there is little wonder when jurers are told how to characterize the evidence.

So, should I understand that you do not feel it would be helpful for the law to recognize the level of viciousness in a killer? Do you not think that if you were a juror at a murder trial, that it might be helpful to you to be provided with a scientific framework to understand the crime better, so that you might render the best judgment? I think that it would be helpful for there to be a scientific basis for saying that a psychopathic serial killer who kills randomly and for fun should get a far more severe sentence than an otherwise law-abiding person who, for example, flies into a fit of rage upon finding a husband or wife in bed with another person. Do you feel that these two killers should be treated in exactly the same way?

Again, nobody is suggesting that this scale replace the jury but that it merely provides a tool for understanding the nature of the crime.

" I think that it would be helpful for there to be a scientific basis for saying that a psychopathic serial killer who kills randomly and for fun should get a far more severe sentence than an otherwise law-abiding person who, for example, flies into a fit of rage upon finding a husband or wife in bed with another person."

I would agree IF it was a "scientific basis" but just because these clowns have doctor in their title does not mean they even know what a "scientific" method is.

Their theories cannot be proven, tested using a scientific method. How many pieces of human debris have been released from our prisons because Dr.Ima Nutcase rubbed his distinguished chin and proclaimed "Mr. C.Molester is no threat to society"?

Anything these clowns say have to be prefaced with "IMO" as they cannot prove anything. Its a guess at best.

Their opinions have served to distort truth and reality and certainly have been used as a major component in PC thought.

>>Do you not think that if you were a juror at a murder trial, that it might be helpful to you to be provided with a scientific framework to understand the crime better, so that you might render the best judgment?<<

From the juries I have sat on I would say that most of the individuals with me would not have known a scientific framework from an opinion. Under our system of justice, a jury is supposed to be members of the suspect's peers, not students of ethics or pyschiatry. To require a jury to "filter" the evidence through a screen is subverting the jury system and removing their freedom and perogative to reach their own judgement.

You also had asked if I agree with you on certain types of murderers. Without the details of each of these crimes, I cannot answer your question.

The best part of our jury system is that we have a system that allows jurors to use their own intelligence and/or prejudices to reach a judgement.

Muleteam1

Do you not think that if you were a juror at a murder trial, that it might be helpful to you to be provided with a scientific framework to understand the crime better, so that you might render the best judgment?

Well for me it might make a good tool to decide whether it'd be death by hanging, electric chair, gas, firing squad, stoning, or being buried up to one's neck soaked in gasoline and burned. :-)