So his argument boils down to that juries should be comprised of people that think positively about the crime you're being tried for.
and be whiter than alabaster.
You, sir, are evil, and bound for the eternal fires of hell. While I would never look God, or anyone really, in the eye and say "yes, I want this man to burn for eternity in hell," I wont complain to God if he damns you behind my back without asking.
AND HE KNOWS THAT.
It's nice that he provides his own reductio ad absurdum at the end with the drug dealer thing to illustrate how his view leads to bizarre consequences and thus can't be true.
"multicultural, or dare I say...messed up?"
DARE, DARE! you dick-brained fucking twat
America used to be one homogenous nation where you and your neighbours all thought alike...
Since when, motherfucko?
WTF is this? Can he not hear himself?
Ummm, he's right. Juries need to be impartial, a "jury of peers". That is why, for example, we don't want racists serving on juries, and if it turns out that when a man was convicted, one of the jurors was racist (and therefore potentially unable to render an impartial verdict), the results of the trial can be overturned.
Kent Hovind is a very controversial figure. A lot of people, myself included, hate Mr Hovind's guts, and would love to see him knocked down a peg or six. We're against him for ideological reasons: reasons which have absolutely no relevance to his trials for mail fraud and tax evasion, reasons which compromise our ability to treat him fairly. *I* wouldn't want me serving anywhere near a Kent Hovind trial!
That's already done, EH. Venues are argued for and against all the time, with trials relocated because the defense can argue (and has the money to do so) that their client can't get a fair trial in X location because, say, the defendant is on trial for defrauding most of the available jury pool. Juries are heavily vetted by the prosecution, defense, and the judge. It's not perfect, obviously, but the demands made by this guy are a fig leaf for white Christians being allowed to let each other off the hook for criminal activity.
As for Hovind's ideology, that shouldn't enter into it. He's on trial for tax fraud, which is fairly cut and dried. His particular religious bent shouldn't even enter into it beyond his claims for tax exemption under the law vis a vis not-for-profit religious institutions.
What this guy is arguing for is basically jury nullification based on creed and race. He's arguing that "peer" doesn't mean just someone of one's own socio-economic status, but one of your same religion, skin tone, and politics so they'll let the defendant off because they're 'one of us.'
This guy may have ulterior motives - he might *want* jury nullification - but that doesn't change the fact that he's correct about belief in evolution being a major problem for any jury that will sit in judgement over Kent Hovind. I might not go so far as to say that jurors need to be CREATIONISTS, or even Christians. However, I think it's reasonable, even necessary, to make sure that jurors have, at bare minimum, no strong feelings in favour of evolution or against Young-Earth Creationism. Otherwise, the jury is going to know Hovind's reputation, and be unfairly biased against him.
Surely, it's not too much to ask that, when a public intellectual like Kent Hovind is put on trial, they find jurors who have no knowledge of, or even interest in, science.
Again, that wouldn't enter into arguments; it's tax fraud.
And do you also think the jury should consist of people who don't care about religion, either?
|Jet Bin Fever |
WOW. I've seen a lot of passively racist assholes on this site. But, this is fucking amazing. This is fucking AMAZING. He has no idea about how jury selection works. What a dumb fucking son of a bitch. Reminds me of my father (whom I have mentioned before here and is a personal friend of Sean Hannity). Can't wait for baby boomers to die off.
Literally one step away from adding 'And when you lynched a nigger, you'd know your peers on the jury wouldn't hold it against you unnessecarily.'.
Five for unadulterated evil.
American Christians just absolutely refuse to acknowledge that there is a massive population of Christians that answer "Yes" to the question of, "Do you believe in evolution or do you believe that you were created in God's image?"
|Rodents of Unusual Size |
I think juries should have to know the story of David and the lion by heart. Because the lion was a euphemism for his obvious homosexuality.
But seriously, this was pretty mind boggling. Because biological evolution and mail fraud, you can't have one without other...I suppose.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|