Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : THE STARR REPORT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (1505)	9/25/1998 5:43:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1533

More tonsorial bifurcation on your part Dipy and you're stretching into irrelevance, but . . . Two points. One, are jury members ever required to write long reports as to exactly why they found someone guilty/not-guilty? No. My infamous "so what?" light just came on. "And two, if something is "demonstrably false" or "demonstrably true", then why even bother to have a jury?" Ridiculous question. That is precisely how the jury system works - they provide a "peer" review of the allowable facts as presented by the state and the defendant. If there are demonstrable facts, evidence, etc., that they somehow disregard (as in, if they were biased or tampered with) the judge has the authority to correct the problem. He may even remove jurors - they don't operate in a vacuum. Mr. K.