Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While in many cases it might be reasonable to forgive a defendant acquitted by a jury of his peers, it is not with al-Arian. Regardless of whether or not the jury believed his actions constituted a specific legal violation by acting “in furtherance of” terrorist attacks, there is no mistaking what is in al-Arian’s heart.

[/ QUOTE ]



Our system doesn't allow for juries figuring out what is in someone's heart. They do, I'm sure, but juries are charged with rendering a verdict based on evidence - nothing else. If I'm on a jury and "know in my gut" someone is guilty, but the prosecution did not prove it, beyond a reasonable doubt - I've got no choice but to acquit. Supposedly.

A juror who decides to vote "guilty" because of his "feelings" or "suspicions," is no different than a cop who renders "street justice." Actually, I'd trust the cop's gut before the juror's.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, but there the author isn't talking about the jury convicting or not based on what is in al-Arian's heart--the author is talking about others forgiving al-Arian or not, regardless of the jury's verdict.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, but there the author isn't talking about the jury convicting or not based on what is in al-Arian's heart--the author is talking about others forgiving al-Arian or not, regardless of the jury's verdic

[/ QUOTE ]

It is unlikely that those who prejudged his guilt are likely to forgive him -- regardless of the facts, the juries opinion or any other internet writer offering an opposing opinion.

[BluffTHIS!]

The point MMMMMM was making, was that these domestic Moslem groups who claim not to support terrorism, are hailing his acquittal despite the amount of evidence. Even if the jury system did work and there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict, they should not be supporting someone who has been proved to support terrorism just by his own words and actions in the evidence presented.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
The point MMMMMM was making, was that these domestic Moslem groups who claim not to support terrorism, are hailing his acquittal despite the amount of evidence. Even if the jury system did work and there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict, they should not be supporting someone who has been proved to support terrorism just by his own words and actions in the evidence presented.

[/ QUOTE ]

Proved?

Many on this forum who are likely to consider that he is proved to be a terrorist supporter are likely those who accuse Chris Alger of being Anti-American or who think I am a liberal. They have much to understand about proper thinking.

[ QUOTE ]
OK, but there the author isn't talking about the jury convicting or not based on what is in al-Arian's heart--the author is talking about others forgiving al-Arian or not, regardless of the jury's verdict.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ooooops, did I mis-read or simply not understand? OK, back to the blog (and maybe a remedial reading class on the way?)

Crap, I hate when this happens!

[img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, but there the author isn't talking about the jury convicting or not based on what is in al-Arian's heart--the author is talking about others forgiving al-Arian or not, regardless of the jury's verdict.

[/ QUOTE ]


<ul type="square"> What we have here is a failure to communicate.[/list]

The author wrote...


[ QUOTE ]
...there is no mistaking what is in al-Arian’s heart.

[/ QUOTE ]


From that, I took it that his opinion, not the jury's, was that Sami should have been convicted because of what was in his (Sami's) heart. I was saying that I didn't want jurors making decisions based on what they thought was in the accused's heart.

My interpretation of the author's opinion is that he feels the opposite. Since he (author) "knows" what Sami thinks, feels, believes, he (author) doesn't need facts or a properly presented prosecution.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While in many cases it might be reasonable to forgive a defendant acquitted by a jury of his peers, it is not with al-Arian. Regardless of whether or not the jury believed his actions constituted a specific legal violation by acting “in furtherance of” terrorist attacks, there is no mistaking what is in al-Arian’s heart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our system doesn't allow for juries figuring out what is in someone's heart. They do, I'm sure, but juries are charged with rendering a verdict based on evidence - nothing else.
<font color="white"> . </font>
If I'm on a jury and "know in my gut" someone is guilty, but the prosecution did not prove it, beyond a reasonable doubt - I've got no choice but to acquit. Supposedly.
<font color="white"> . </font>
A juror who decides to vote "guilty" because of his "feelings" or "suspicions," is no different than a cop who renders "street justice."

[/ QUOTE ]

VNH, sir. So far.


[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I'd trust the cop's gut before the juror's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ooops! Blunder.

[ QUOTE ]
Ooops! Blunder.

[/ QUOTE ]


At the risk of appearing to be seeking your total approval...

I am absolutely against "street justice." But given a choice, I'd go with a cop's experience and knowledge before the average jury panel member. Just my personal experience.

[ACPlayer]

The power of the jury is not in the intelligence or ability of a single member. It is the group dynamic that leads to good decision making. A single person (cop or other wise) brings his prejudices to the decision, the group dynamic attenuates the individual prejudices.

Cyrus was right in his "blunder" assessment -- IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
The power of the jury is not in the intelligence or ability of a single member. It is the group dynamic that leads to good decision making. A single person (cop or other wise) brings his prejudices to the decision, the group dynamic attenuates the individual prejudices.

Cyrus was right in his "blunder" assessment -- IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]


Believe me, I understand synergy and group dynamics. And I wasn't trying to get Cyrus's (or yours, now) approval. I stand by my post. We seem to disagree, but that's not a rarity.

Ideally, the group will make the good/right decision. In real life, an extremely powerful personality can sometimes sway the group.

Yes, everyone brings a certain amount of prejudices/life experiences into any group. Given enough time, those will usually come out in some form. And the group will take that into consideration when making their decision. That's the process of juries. That's one of the reasons deliberations can last so long.

In passing... Twelve Angry Men is an outstanding movie about jury deliberations. There's another (I can't remember the title) based on a John Grisham book about someone manipulating a jury.