Yes, the banning of the juvenile death penalty was...

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe

"it will inflame the jury--therefore these photos will not be allowed"

Showing graphic photos to a jury can only appeal to thier emotional side. It will anger them and make them want to find someone to blame it on, even if that person didn't commit the crime. They are more likely to convict when shown bloody photos. If the photos don't convery any information other than "a brutal murder took place," there is no need to show the jury.

The testimony of the coroner, crime scene investigator, etc. should be enough in most cases. If there is a dispute about the facts, and the photos address those facts, then sure, show the jury the photos.

Once a person has been found guilty and the penalty is being discussed, then it's appropriate to show the photos around. Let them judge the severity of the crime by looking at the scene.

[Lady Sidhe]

I dunno...look at what happened with OJ....

[glatt]

The OJ trial is hardly typical of criminal trials in the USA.

[kerosene]

The only point I am making is that your statistics can't be trusted. You just spouted them off with NO REAL BACKING. So what if you know everything about every case ever tried? We don't know that for a fact, and we can't trust you not to have a clear bias. So, you are the one who spouted off the statistic, you should be the one to have to prove it. I am not making any guess as to what percentage of cases are what. I am not interested in making judgements in that regard. But if I am to take your argument seriously, then I would like to know how you came up with the statistic, to know if you really have a leg to stand on. Since you can't seem to back it up with anything substantial, I guess I will just have to assume you are just spouting off random opinions with no basis in reality.

Of course, if you started using logic and facts to base your ramblings on, your opinions might be viewed differently by this forum, but we can't be so lucky. Those of us who get sick of listening to your circular arguments just have to ignore you, but I guess that's life.

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally Posted by case

The only point I am making is that your statistics can't be trusted. You just spouted them off with NO REAL BACKING. So what if you know everything about every case ever tried? We don't know that for a fact, and we can't trust you not to have a clear bias. So, you are the one who spouted off the statistic, you should be the one to have to prove it. I am not making any guess as to what percentage of cases are what. I am not interested in making judgements in that regard. But if I am to take your argument seriously, then I would like to know how you came up with the statistic, to know if you really have a leg to stand on. Since you can't seem to back it up with anything substantial, I guess I will just have to assume you are just spouting off random opinions with no basis in reality.

Of course, if you started using logic and facts to base your ramblings on, your opinions might be viewed differently by this forum, but we can't be so lucky. Those of us who get sick of listening to your circular arguments just have to ignore you, but I guess that's life.

I gave statistics earlier, and it didn't seem to make a difference. See the post I made with all the stats...