bud Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 is the jury system in america working? A grieving African-American mother in Georgia is facing the potential of more time in prison than the drunk driver who struck and killed her child and then fled the scene. Raquel Nelson lost her four-year-old son while trying to shuttle him across a five-lane highway, along with two of her other children. Jerry Guy, a partially blind man who has admitted to having consumed alcohol and painkillers beforehand, hit the young boy with his vehicle. The child later died of his injuries. Nelson and her daughter were also struck and suffered injuries. An all-white jury has convicted Nelson of homicide by vehicle in the second degree, jaywalking and reckless conduct. She could serve up to three years in prison. Meanwhile, the drunk driver, Guy, who was previously convicted of two hit-and-runs in one day in 1997, was initially charged with hit and run, first degree homicide by a vehicle and cruelty to children. But the charges were later dropped to simply hit and run. Guy served a six-month jail term and will spend the remainder of his five-year sentence on probation. http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/20/headlines#13 http://www.ajc.com/news/cobb/pedestrian-convicted-of-vehicular-1014879.html http://www.examiner.com/green-transportation-in-national/marietta-pedestrian-convicted-of-vehicular-manslaughter-while-walking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 is the jury system in america working? A grieving African-American mother in Georgia is facing the potential of more time in prison than the drunk driver who struck and killed her child and then fled the scene. Raquel Nelson lost her four-year-old son while trying to shuttle him across a five-lane highway, along with two of her other children. Jerry Guy, a partially blind man who has admitted to having consumed alcohol and painkillers beforehand, hit the young boy with his vehicle. The child later died of his injuries. Nelson and her daughter were also struck and suffered injuries. An all-white jury has convicted Nelson of homicide by vehicle in the second degree, jaywalking and reckless conduct. She could serve up to three years in prison. Meanwhile, the drunk driver, Guy, who was previously convicted of two hit-and-runs in one day in 1997, was initially charged with hit and run, first degree homicide by a vehicle and cruelty to children. But the charges were later dropped to simply hit and run. Guy served a six-month jail term and will spend the remainder of his five-year sentence on probation. http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/20/headlines#13 http://www.ajc.com/news/cobb/pedestrian-convicted-of-vehicular-1014879.html http://www.examiner.com/green-transportation-in-national/marietta-pedestrian-convicted-of-vehicular-manslaughter-while-walking I'm not sure this is racial bias... It certainly brings into question a "jury of your peers" when your "peers" seemingly have the IQ's of wet cheezies... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 is the jury system in america working? Yes...it works as well as anyplace else. Both would only get probation in Canada! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 is the jury system in america working? This is but one case in how many that occur in the United States??? But yeah, let's answer your question based on this one case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 This is but one case in how many that occur in the United States??? But yeah, let's answer your question based on this one case. Furthermore, juries do not bring charges or sentence convicts. Why pick on them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 Furthermore, juries do not bring charges or sentence convicts. Why pick on them? Exactly. Not to mention the case will most likely go to into appeal ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 Stories like this are just the worst way to get information. There could be hundreds of mitigating factors to this situation that aren't being posed here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted July 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 i was stunned when i read about this case. maybe it's the excessive information from the casey anthony trial debacle that i'm unable to escape from, which has me bewildered and questioning the system in general. from relying on a jury to the laws and the penalties handed down. this partially blind man, who admitted to drinking and taking drugs would probably have not killed the child if he was sober. he also has received previous convictions. why did he only get 6 months in jail? the question of racial bias in this can be questionable but that's a whole other issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) i was stunned when i read about this case. maybe it's the excessive information from the casey anthony trial debacle that i'm unable to escape from, which has me bewildered and questioning the system in general. from relying on a jury to the laws and the penalties handed down. There was no debacle in the Anthony trial....murder was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The "system" worked quite well. this partially blind man, who admitted to drinking and taking drugs would probably have not killed the child if he was sober. he also has received previous convictions. why did he only get 6 months in jail? Because that's what the law provides for a hit & run conviction even with priors. Was probably a plea deal because proving more serious charges would have been iffy. the question of racial bias in this can be questionable but that's a whole other issue. Racial bias is also not proven! Edited July 20, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 Stories like this are just the worst way to get information. There could be hundreds of mitigating factors to this situation that aren't being posed here. For one thing, the driver's conviction/sentence has nothing to do with the mother's trial/sentence. She did break the law by crossing at a non-intersection/non-crosswalk and did endanger her child. The child was waiting on a median for traffic to pass and stepped out into traffic. Was he hit because the driver had been drinking or was he hit because he stepped out in front of a car and anyone who was driving would have been unable to avoid hitting him? From what I've read, the driver wasn't charged with DUI, so I have to wonder if he was actually drunk or if his alcohol level was within the legal limit. At any rate, the mother shouldn't be excused from her wrongdoing just because the driver had been drinking - and this trial wasn't about the driver or his actions - it was strictly about the mother's actions. That's what the jury of this trial would be considering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted July 20, 2011 Report Share Posted July 20, 2011 http://www.examiner.com/green-transportation-in-national/marietta-pedestrian-convicted-of-vehicular-manslaughter-while-walking This link has the most information, so IMO based on this, notwithstanding that the crosswalks were half a mile away, I can understand the reckless endangerment charge, but what other choices did she have? The driver should be still rotting in jail as he is a repeat offender, he is getting off to lightly. Not sure at all this has anything to do with race, just laws and lawyers as in the Casey trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) Hmm well it does seem unjust at first glance. But think about it, trying to take your 3 little kids and run them across a 5 lane highway in the middle of traffic? Really? Lock that person away for shear stupidity. Not only are you putting yourself and your kids in grave danger, you could potentially cause harm to dozens of other people as drivers attempt to rapidly stop or swerve around you and collide with other vehicles in the process. But yeah, the driver should get a longer sentence, mainly because of his prior history and the fact he was driving under the influence. If neither was the case, my opinion would be that he should have walked away completely free. If I was driving down a 5 lane highway and suddenly some crazy lady with her kids was there in front of me and I didn't manage to avoid hitting them, I sure as hell don't think I'd deserve to be in prison as a result. Of course, the lawyers and media are pulling the race card, when it has no relevance whatsoever. Edited July 21, 2011 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 i was stunned when i read about this case. maybe it's the excessive information from the casey anthony trial debacle that i'm unable to escape from, which has me bewildered and questioning the system in general. from relying on a jury to the laws and the penalties handed down. As Bush_Cheney2004 points out, the Anthony trial appeared to have gone just as it should have. If the verdict was a bad one (which isn't a given...unless we say that guilt is clear and automatic no matter what happens in trial) the fault certainly doesn't lay with the jury. Their job is to decide upon evidence presented. It's odd that so many people seem angry at the jury; it's as thopugh they should ignore evidence presented, and work on "gut instinct" or "common sense" (ye gods). The implication (almost explication) has been this: "sure, the prosecution didn't do a good job...but the jury should have seen past this." I'm not sure everyone appreciates what a horrible idea that is. CA might not be "innocent"--probably we'll never know--but she is certainly "not guilty" in a crucial and (to some degree) civilization-defining legal sense. In short, if America were not a free country, and didn't have a strong and established legal system...then she'd almost certainly be found guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 As Bush_Cheney2004 points out, the Anthony trial appeared to have gone just as it should have. If the verdict was a bad one (which isn't a given...unless we say that guilt is clear and automatic no matter what happens in trial) the fault certainly doesn't lay with the jury. Their job is to decide upon evidence presented. It's odd that so many people seem angry at the jury; it's as thopugh they should ignore evidence presented, and work on "gut instinct" or "common sense" (ye gods). The implication (almost explication) has been this: "sure, the prosecution didn't do a good job...but the jury should have seen past this." I'm not sure everyone appreciates what a horrible idea that is. CA might not be "innocent"--probably we'll never know--but she is certainly "not guilty" in a crucial and (to some degree) civilization-defining legal sense. In short, if America were not a free country, and didn't have a strong and established legal system...then she'd almost certainly be found guilty. I guess we all see things differently. I felt the prosecution did a fine job with the evidence that was available to them and that the jury failed to properly consider the jury instructions in reaching the conclusions that it did. The problem with your analysis of the decision is that the jury seems to have relied on extraneous information offered up by Jose Baez in his opening statement most of which lacked an evidentiary basis. Secondly it also appears the jurors lacked the necessary understanding of the evidentiary burden of beyond a reasonable doubt substituting instead a standard of no doubt. While these jurors had a mandate to make such a decision it appears to me that the decision made was patently unreasonable. By the way that legal system you attribute to the Americans is one adopted from the British for the most part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 By the way that legal system you attribute to the Americans is one adopted from the British for the most part. Sure, and I wasn't suggesting the American system is "the best in the world," or something. I was positing that it sits comfortably among the best in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted July 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) Secondly it also appears the jurors lacked the necessary understanding of the evidentiary burden of beyond a reasonable doubt substituting instead a standard of no doubt. While these jurors had a mandate to make such a decision it appears to me that the decision made was patently unreasonable. i fully agree. it was unfair of me to make this sound like i was blaming the american system as this could have happened in many other number of places. but i do believe there is something wrong with the system as i don't think the jury system is fair and just. i wish we could find a way to improve it. for example, the introduction of dna as evidence not only freed many wrongly convicted people, but it also showed the shortcomings in relying on jurors to make the correct decision. Edited July 21, 2011 by bud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 i fully agree. it was unfair of me to make this sound like i was blaming the american system as this could have happened in many other number of places. but i do believe there is something wrong with the system as i don't think the jury system is fair and just. i wish we could find a way to improve it. for example, the introduction of dna as evidence not only freed many wrongly convicted people, but it also showed the shortcomings in relying on jurors to make the correct decision. The problem is that you cannot legislate against morons being on a jury... Our "peers" are occassionally made up of morons... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 Hmm well it does seem unjust at first glance. But think about it, trying to take your 3 little kids and run them across a 5 lane highway in the middle of traffic? Really? Lock that person away for shear stupidity. Not only are you putting yourself and your kids in grave danger, you could potentially cause harm to dozens of other people as drivers attempt to rapidly stop or swerve around you and collide with other vehicles in the process. Exactly. I'm surprised that so many are apparently not picking up on this. There's a reason it was illegal for her to cross the street where she did. It's the parent's responsibility to ensure their child's safety, and making an illegal crossing with a five year old across a five lane highway definitely puts the child in danger. What if a different driver happened to be in that spot at that specific time- no drinking involved, no prescription drug use, no priors. Seems to me we would not be blaming the driver and absolving the mother. We see parents putting their child in danger at different times, and most times - thankfully - nothing happens, but when it does, shouldn't the parent(s) be held responsible for their part in it? But yeah, the driver should get a longer sentence, mainly because of his prior history and the fact he was driving under the influence. Again, this has nothing to do with this case. The jury was only responsible for making a verdict regarding the mother. They had nothing to do with the driver - or his sentence. They were two separate issues. If neither was the case, my opinion would be that he should have walked away completely free. I agree. If I was driving down a 5 lane highway and suddenly some crazy lady with her kids was there in front of me and I didn't manage to avoid hitting them, I sure as hell don't think I'd deserve to be in prison as a result. I agree completely, and not only that, we'd have to live with the fact that we hit and killed a child. I can't imagine that would be an easy thing to live with. Of course, the lawyers and media are pulling the race card, when it has no relevance whatsoever. Totally agree. In fact, if the mother had not been a minority, chances are a number of those defending her would be seeing her as having endangered her child - and would believe that she held some accountability for her actions - which were illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) ... Edited July 21, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted July 22, 2011 Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 The problem is that you cannot legislate against morons being on a jury... Our "peers" are occassionally made up of morons... This is one of the reasons defence attorneys prefer trial by jury rather than by a judge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 5, 2011 Report Share Posted August 5, 2011 Update: link The judge in the case sentenced her to a year's probation and community service - or the opportunity for another trial. She chose the new trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted August 5, 2011 Report Share Posted August 5, 2011 I have not been keeping up with this but this struck me as odd..... A woman convicted of vehicular homicide .... What the...? She wasnt driving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 5, 2011 Report Share Posted August 5, 2011 I have not been keeping up with this but this struck me as odd..... What the...? She wasnt driving. It is an odd charge/conviction. Maybe that's why she was given the choice of a retrial? - I thought that was odd too, though. What I don't understand is the idea that she shouldn't bear any responsibility for her child's death. I would think she should have been tried for child endangerment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted August 5, 2011 Report Share Posted August 5, 2011 Pretty hard one for me to say she should. If...and I mean IF the linked reporting is accurate , then she shouldnt have been charged. It says the "daughter then darted safely across the street, but A.J. was struck and killed by the van when he followed. Nelson chased after them and was also struck and injured" Looks to me like kid bolted, second one did, mom chased and bit the grill. Not bright, but seems charges are over the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 5, 2011 Report Share Posted August 5, 2011 Pretty hard one for me to say she should. If...and I mean IF the linked reporting is accurate , then she shouldnt have been charged. It says the "daughter then darted safely across the street, but A.J. was struck and killed by the van when he followed. Nelson chased after them and was also struck and injured" Looks to me like kid bolted, second one did, mom chased and bit the grill. Not bright, but seems charges are over the top. She was crossing a five lane highway where it is illegal to cross. She's responsible for her child's well being. She endangered him by breaking the law and putting him in the situation where they were waiting on the three foot median of a five lane highway to complete the crossing. But for that fact, he wouldn't have been in the position to dart in front of the car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.