Kinja reply list

Read More
Seize: it's about ethics in gossip journalismAnna Merlan
6/16/15 9:34am
new plan America: how about every rape trial has a rape survivor on the jury?

...I'm kidding. But the idea that being a rape survivor disqualifies you from participating in any civil role seems fucked up.
Reply
- Read More
  CabezonSeize: it's about ethics in gossip journalism
  6/16/15 9:44am
  It’s about process, not disqualification. Look up peremptory challenge. The defense could have used one to remove this juror based on this information.
  Reply
- Read More
  Betty shooting birdsSeize: it's about ethics in gossip journalism
  6/16/15 9:46am
  Hey, some of us treasure our “never have to serve on a criminal jury” status!
  Reply
Read More
kemperboydAnna Merlan
6/16/15 9:39am
So now jurors can’t be a felon, a victim of crime or have an opinion against the death penalty? Who the fuck is left? Honestly this is bullshit.
Reply
- Read More
  BIlllingtonkemperboyd
  6/16/15 9:46am
  I’m sure there are victims of crimes on juries all the time. The problem is he didn’t disclose his own rape at a rape trial. The defense is allowed that information during the jury selection process.
  Reply
- Read More
  The Noble Renardkemperboyd
  6/16/15 10:00am
  Just to be clear, this isn’t about disqualifying people from juries, it’s about giving the defense or the prosecution a chance to “strike” certain jurors who they believe might be biased.
  
  In any jury trial, each side gets a number of “strikes” that they can use against any member of the jury, for any reason so long as it’s not to strike people because of race. These are typically used in cases where there might be an obvious source of bias; here, the defense would likely have struck anyone who was a rape survivor because his client was accused of rape. In a murder case, the defense will almost always strike anyone who had a family member murdered, for another example.
  
  The prosecution gets strikes too, so in a rape case, if someone says during jury selection that they don’t believe in acquaintance rape, or they believe that a woman deserves it depending on how she’s dressed, the prosecutor can strike that person from the jury as well.
  Reply
Read More
TheocraticjelloAnna Merlan
6/16/15 9:36am
What are the latest statistics? 1 in 4-5 women are raped, and 1 in 7-10 men are raped? That disqualifies a large population from jury duty. Doesn’t seem practical.
Reply
- Read More
  ChocolatescroogeTheocraticjello
  6/16/15 9:45am
  While I really don’t like the mistrial argument being used here, the idea is that he was the victim of the same crime on which he’s asked to impart judgement—so it’s not excluding them from jusry duty entirely (not to mention your statistics seem off—conflating rape with sexual assault). In the interest of ensuring a fair trial, it’s entirely reasonable not to include such people so as to avoid the risk of bias.
  Reply
- Read More
  kemperboydTheocraticjello
  6/16/15 9:47am
  How many men and women rape? How statistically likely is it that a rapist is on a jury (obviously an unconvicted one)?
  Reply
Read More
BotanyBuffAnna Merlan
6/16/15 9:43am
Wait... if the older guy was convicted at 23, was he still a teenager himself when he committed the statutory rape? And isn’t 16 legal? Or is that only for straight people?

I... actually have major issues with people being considered sex offenders for consensual sex with people in their general age range. That is not what those registries are meant for.
Reply
- Read More
  atlanticoceanidBotanyBuff
  6/16/15 10:09am
  Laws are the same no matter the genders/orientations. Each state has different laws about what acceptable. There isn’t a blanket “all teens are OK.” I live in the Northeast. My state says a 15 year old with a 19 year old is OK, but a 14 year old with a 15 year old is not. A nearby state says that 15 is not OK with anyone of any age. If this was years ago, the laws were even more strict, many states had no exceptions like the above and it was a blanket 16 or 17 or 18.
  Reply
- Read More
  KorraBotanyBuff
  6/16/15 10:11am
  The age of consent differs by state. Where I’m from It’s 16, but where I live now I think it’s 18.
  
  And I’m assuming the man was still in his 20s when Mr. Easter was 16.
  Reply
Read More
KorraAnna Merlan
6/16/15 9:53am
If you are a victim of a crime you aren’t necessarily unfit for jury duty. If you were the victim of identity theft that has nothing to do with, say, a murder case and you can serve. You tell the judge anyway and it’s up to him/her to decide and the lawyers to argue about.

A sexual assault survivor would probably triggered in a sexual assault related case, and wouldn’t be able to make the best decisions.
Reply
- Read More
  The Noble RenardKorra
  6/16/15 9:56am
  But what about, as in this case, the juror believes that he was never the victim of sexual assault because he had a nominally consensual relationship with someone seven years older than him?
  
  I can absolutely see why he didn’t disclose, and why he doesn’t believe it would have triggered him.
  Reply
- Read More
  KorraThe Noble Renard
  6/16/15 9:59am
  I understand what he’s saying and why he wouldn't want to disclose, but since the other guy went to jail he really should have said something, explained his position, and let the judge & lawyers decide.
  Reply
Read More
SterilizeAllRepublicansAnna Merlan
6/16/15 9:34am
If these fuckheads get acquitted because of this, it would be so very typical.
Reply
- Read More
  kemperboydSterilizeAllRepublicans
  6/16/15 9:47am
  It’d result in another trial no?
  Reply
- Read More
  MeatBiscuitkemperboyd
  6/16/15 9:51am
  Yes—a mistrial just throws out the results of the trial, and they could re-try the case. By way of clarification, I don’t think that the argument is that a victim of rape would be automatically disqualified to serve on a jury, but that the defense was entitled to know about the potential bias. As much as it sickens me that they would have to start over, if the juror concealed something that the defense would have wanted to consider when going through jury selection, that’s a potential problem.
  Reply
Read More
mekkiAnna Merlan
6/16/15 9:33am
“arguing that the jury foreman failed to disclose that he was a victim of rape as a teenager.”

Okay, hands up who didn’t see that twist coming.

(raises hand)
Reply
- Read More
  Chocolatescroogemekki
  6/16/15 9:42am
  The fact that you think that’s a twist is part of the problem.
  Reply
- Read More
  Cunning69linguistmekki
  6/16/15 9:58am
  I saw it coming.
  
  Sadly, in 2015, being a leader of a group is still more predictive of gender than being a rape victim. Shit. That came out wrong. But you know what I mean.
  Reply
Read More
imTired™thatisall is saving up for Gronk Cruise 2017Anna Merlan
6/16/15 9:49am
I guess that defense attorney wouldn’t be a very good one if they didn’t pursue this loophole.
Reply
Read More
cameheretosaythisAnna Merlan
6/16/15 10:08am
when i served on a jury (for unwanted sexual contact), i disclosed that i was a sexual assault and domestic abuse counselor. no one on either side blinked. i got placed on the jury and was sick to my stomach that somehow this whole thing would get thrown because of that.
Reply
Read More
Merkins for LessAnna Merlan
6/16/15 9:50am
Oh, for fucks sake. If being a victim of sexual assault disqualifies a person from serving in an assault case, then half of the jury pool would be eliminated. One American is assaulted every 107 seconds.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics
Reply