IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Ghislaine Maxwell , Jeffrey Epstein , sex trafficking

Reply
Old 18th January 2022, 11:56 AM   #1761
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 12,569
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Thank you. As I said I do not understand the issue here. If the decision was made by the judge, why was Maxwell's consent needed? I feel I am missing something very obvious. However seems a trivial issue and not worth pursuing any more. Thanks to those who tried to enlighten me.
Maxwell's consent isn't needed. Her motion was just one thing the judge took in to account and it's not clear how much her motion mattered in the first place.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2022, 02:34 PM   #1762
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 14,754
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
Wherein comes the apparently acceptable assumption that self-described victims of sexual abuse are incapable of serving as impartial and objective members of the jury?
.....
Not just sexual abuse. Prospective jurors in a criminal case are asked about any experience they have had with similar crimes, with police officers etc., and if they answer "yes" they may be questioned further about what happened, how long ago, whether they can still be fair and impartial, etc. It is not by itself disqualifying, but simply allows further examination. But answering "no" when it's a lie is a problem.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2022, 04:26 PM   #1763
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,205
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
Thank you. As I said I do not understand the issue here. If the decision was made by the judge, why was Maxwell's consent needed? I feel I am missing something very obvious. However seems a trivial issue and not worth pursuing any more. Thanks to those who tried to enlighten me.
Guiffre filed a defamation suit against Maxwell. A bunch of documents were entered into the docket for that case. Maxwell had a bunch of stuff in those documents redacted by the court. Guiffre later asked to have those documents unsealed with no redaction. Maxwell objected to having some of that information released and judge agreed to not remove all of the redactions due to the pending criminal case against Maxwell. I haven't looked into it in detail, but presumably that was some of that information could have been self-incriminating.

Now that the criminal trial is over, Guiffre is again asking to have the documents unredacted. Maxwell has said she will not object to that request. Maxwell's consent is not needed, but because she was a party to that lawsuit and was the one who asked for the redaction in the first place, she still has a right to object to Guiffre's request. The eight people whose names would be revealed also have a right to object. The judge will then review the objections and determine what will be unsealed.
__________________
I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:12 AM   #1764
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,972
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Not just sexual abuse. Prospective jurors in a criminal case are asked about any experience they have had with similar crimes, with police officers etc., and if they answer "yes" they may be questioned further about what happened, how long ago, whether they can still be fair and impartial, etc.
But why is that? Again it's like there's a unstated assumption that self-described victims of a crime are likely to make poor jury members of such cases. It seems really presumptuous and outright insulting.
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr

And no, Cuba is not a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and it's definitely less so than Sweden. - dann
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:59 AM   #1765
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,081
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Not just sexual abuse. Prospective jurors in a criminal case are asked about any experience they have had with similar crimes, with police officers etc., and if they answer "yes" they may be questioned further about what happened, how long ago, whether they can still be fair and impartial, etc. It is not by itself disqualifying, but simply allows further examination. But answering "no" when it's a lie is a problem.

I'm not sure what the precise rules are in federal trials, but in most US jurisdictions, jury selection permits each side a certain number of peremptory challenges. This means that, for example, defence attorneys can reject this number of potential jurors for any reason whatsoever. They don't have to explain why they choose to reject. And over and above this, each side can have a number of "for cause" challenges; in those instances, the attorneys have to explain precisely why they want to exclude this particular juror, and it's up to the trial judge to decide whether the challenge has merit.

So in jury selection for the Maxwell trial, the voir dire and questionnaires for potential jurors were precisely to enable each side to assess which potential jurors they wanted to exclude via peremptory challenge, and which ones they wanted to attempt to exclude via challenge for cause. Had this particular juror truthfully revealed his history as a victim of sexual abuse, it would be a near-certainty that the defence attorneys would either have used one of their peremptory challenges to excuse him, or (if they had already used up their peremptory challenges) they would have attempted a "for cause" dismissal of him.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:01 AM   #1766
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 14,754
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
But why is that? Again it's like there's a unstated assumption that self-described victims of a crime are likely to make poor jury members of such cases. It seems really presumptuous and outright insulting.
The obvious intention is to eliminate jurors who might have an axe to grind, whether as crime victims or for any other reason. The goal is to ensure that the defendant gets a fair trial, not that any particular citizen gets to serve on a jury. And most prospective jurors are grateful to be excused. It's not like jury duty is a sought-after prize.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:17 AM   #1767
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,818
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
But why is that? Again it's like there's a unstated assumption that self-described victims of a crime are likely to make poor jury members of such cases. It seems really presumptuous and outright insulting.
Show me someone who's insulted by the facts of conscious and unconscious bias and how these biases influence our judgement, and I'll show you someone you probably don't want to dispassionately judge allegations of your guilt.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:00 AM   #1768
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,972
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Show me someone who's insulted by the facts of conscious and unconscious bias and how these biases influence our judgement, and I'll show you someone you probably don't want to dispassionately judge allegations of your guilt.
That's not the issue. Plenty of people have an over-emotional reaction that compromises their reasoning towards allegations of sexual abuse and especially "rape", despite never having been a victim of it themselves. I don't see why there would be any reason to specifically single out self-described victims. It's literally holding them to a higher standard.
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr

And no, Cuba is not a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and it's definitely less so than Sweden. - dann
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:14 AM   #1769
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,972
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The obvious intention is to eliminate jurors who might have an axe to grind, whether as crime victims or for any other reason.
Yes and that's the objectionable part: victims of a crime are deemed likely to be biased against people who are merely accused of said crime. The jury is supposed to assume that the accused is innocent until it can be proven that they are guilty.

Are victims of crime noticeably more likely to be "unreasonable" in their judgement of the facts in disregarding that the accused is potentially innocent? Are they hostile towards people accused of crimes rather than those who are guilty of them?
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr

And no, Cuba is not a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and it's definitely less so than Sweden. - dann
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:34 AM   #1770
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 30,660
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
That's not the issue. Plenty of people have an over-emotional reaction that compromises their reasoning towards allegations of sexual abuse and especially "rape", despite never having been a victim of it themselves. I don't see why there would be any reason to specifically single out self-described victims. It's literally holding them to a higher standard.
It's an interesting dilemma here, because although I'm pretty sure some people who have been victims of a crime do have some irrational axe to grind, so do plenty who have not been victims. And as someone who thinks of himself as a rational person, I am also pretty sure that some people who have been victims of a real crime have the experience to judge well whether the alleged crime is real.

Historically, at least anecdotally, one hears often that women who are revealed to be promiscuous have difficulty accusing someone of rape, for example, and would likely not be considered a good candidate for a rape case jury. But rationally speaking, would you not think a person who admits to having had numerous experiences of consensual sex, and a long history of not alleging rape, be the very person to trust? If I were a lawyer representing someone accused of rape, I think I'd want the jury to be full of people who are proven to know the difference.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:09 AM   #1771
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 14,754
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
That's not the issue. Plenty of people have an over-emotional reaction that compromises their reasoning towards allegations of sexual abuse and especially "rape", despite never having been a victim of it themselves. I don't see why there would be any reason to specifically single out self-described victims. It's literally holding them to a higher standard.
So what? The goal is to assemble a jury that is not motivated by a private agenda. The questions typically can be extensive. When a defendant is facing maybe decades in prison, maybe even death, a prospective juror's feelings don't matter. You seem to think that jury duty is some kind of contest that everybody can enter. That's not what it's for.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:09 AM   #1772
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,818
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
That's not the issue. Plenty of people have an over-emotional reaction that compromises their reasoning towards allegations of sexual abuse and especially "rape", despite never having been a victim of it themselves. I don't see why there would be any reason to specifically single out self-described victims. It's literally holding them to a higher standard.
They literally have a stronger emotional connection to the issue.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:25 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.