The Cruel Rural Juror
By Mitch Berg
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Screen shot from today’s Star Tribune. Third paragraph: “ . . . the very day a jury was cruel enough to justify the death penalty.”
Evidence of liberal bias in the media?
Or simple failure of the layers and layers of checkers and editors that make the mainstream media so much more reliable than bloggers?
Joe Doakes
Why choose?
July 28th, 2015 at 6:05 am
You don’t like utilizing AdBlock or Adblock Plus? Discuss…
July 28th, 2015 at 7:01 am
AB:tj
July 28th, 2015 at 7:43 am
I didn’t want my evidence to be “heavily edited” because I know how much that annoys Liberals who get caught. I took a straight screen shot of the page exactly as it appears for the general public, so they could see the media is full of Liberal Bias — which was the subject of this post before you thread-jacked it. Discuss.
July 28th, 2015 at 8:12 am
Opposition to state sponsored murder does have a leftist bias…but it shouldn’t.
We don’t trust the government to run our lives, but we trust it to end the lives of others. I don’t get it.
July 28th, 2015 at 8:54 am
Joe, Emery always polishes his cut and paste jobs to make them his own and expects the same craftsmanship from others.
July 28th, 2015 at 9:08 am
You don’t like utilizing AdBlock or Adblock Plus?
Who cares?
Discuss
No.
July 28th, 2015 at 9:23 am
“The very day a jury [determined the crime] was cruel enough to justify the death penalty.”
July 28th, 2015 at 9:48 am
I agree with Prussian Blue. It looks like whoever posted it originally accidentally omitted the words “determined the crime” as the next sentence talks about the sentencing phase and the jury having to decide between the death penalty and life imprisonment.
So I’d say “no” on “evidence of liberal bias” for this story.
July 28th, 2015 at 10:33 am
I tend to agree with PB, it was likely an editing issue. Lord knows I’ve done that enough myself.
Not that I agree with the death penalty. I can understand why some can, but I don’t.
July 28th, 2015 at 11:11 am
I’m not against the death penalty. I’m against corrupt cops and prosecutors who bring cases without adequate evidence and withhold evidence from the defense. There’s a neat provision in the Torah we might consider; in Deuteronomy, the perjurer gets the penalty he thought to inflict on his victim. If we applied this consistently, we’d get rid of this kind of corruption real quick–let’s imagine Mike Nifong doing 20 years to life instead of the few months he actually served. Think that might sober up some guys putting their fingers on the scale? I think so.
July 28th, 2015 at 1:45 pm
As attractive as that may sound in some egregious corrupt justice cases, we as a society have deemed “an eye for an eye” to be cruel and unusual punishment.
That said, I also agree that a conviction of prosecutorial tampering needs to have a much much harsher sentence than it currently does.
“But that might deter people from pursuing the legal profession!”
Precisely. It’s a win-win-winnity-win.
July 28th, 2015 at 3:00 pm
A recent study concluded 4% of people on death row are innocent.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabethlopatto/2014/04/29/how-many-innocent-people-are-sentenced-to-death/
That’s a higher percentage than homos to the general population, and we just declared buggery a Constitutional right.
Knowing, as I do, how crooked cops and prosecutors are, I could never condone the death penalty. However, if we’re going to keep it, we should make deliberate abuse of the legal process by cops, lawyers or judges punishable by death.
July 28th, 2015 at 3:04 pm
I am actually on solid legal ground with my suggestion, because a cop that plants evidence, or a prosecutor that hides exculpatory evidence, or a judge that fecklessly refuses to consider evidence helpful to exonerate an innocent defendant is, in effect, committing 1st degree, premeditated murder in every sense of the word.
I like my crooked copper extra crispy.
July 28th, 2015 at 4:57 pm
To build on Tweety’s comment, I like, per the Torah, my crooked copper “stoned”.
July 28th, 2015 at 6:44 pm
Testify from the Latin root testis
you swear by your testicles to tell the truth – if you lie you lose them – sounds fair to me.
July 29th, 2015 at 9:16 am
That’s why Abraham had his servant put his hand under his thigh to swear an oath, Kel. I’m not keen on doing that, but (see Mitch’s post on Kenya per Joe Doakes) the principle of honor stands.