[speaker001:] Okay.
[speaker002:] Okay. Well, I, uh, I guess because I work quite a bit with lawyers, I'm not a lawyer, uh, that I find a lot of things are so specialized that I'm not sure, and I, I look at it more from the civil side of things that juries have any sense of, of the value of, and worth, so that they have real problems when it comes to, uh, uh, they can find guilt or innocence
[speaker001:] Right.
[speaker002:] uh, but then when you quantify things and that might also hold criminal trials for how many years is appropriate, uh, that they might leave it to somebody else who, uh, has expertise in that.
[speaker001:] Right, I agree, too. I don't think the jury should be the ones that, that put the sense-, sentencings down. I think the judges should, or even a panel of, of lawyers if, if it got to that point. Might be better at than just regular civil people.
[speaker002:] Uh-huh.
[speaker001:] Not knowing, you know, exactly what things are, from, from murder on up to like tax stuff, you know.
[speaker002:] Yeah. Because I find that, uh, I've been on a few juries and, uh, as a say, I, I tend to be around, uh, civil cases because I've been an expert witness some, and, uh, many matters are so complicated that it's so hard to, uh, come up with the fair value, uh, or the fair sentence and one thing that you get if you have some expertise is, uh, you know the range of, of possible values or terms or, you know, how heinous was the crime.
[speaker001:] Right.
[speaker002:] Uh, that, uh, when I only do something one, two or three times I'm hardly an expert on it, and most juries over a period of five or ten years you might sit on three.
[speaker001:] Yeah and,
[speaker002:] And so how do you relate as to whether this particular armed robbery was a, you know, worth five years or twenty-five.
[speaker001:] Right, that's, yeah. And, and most people that do sit on juries, some people just sit on them once in their lifetime, you know, if they're that lucky sometimes [LAUGHTER].
[speaker002:] Uh-huh.
[speaker001:] Or, you know, what, whatever the case may be. And, and may not have any idea of what, what the standard punishment would be for it.
[speaker002:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] And it, they may have some different idea, I mean, it might be more important for them to put a sen-, sen-, sentencing down that was, uh, longer, you know, that didn't fit, the punishment didn't fit the crime.
[speaker002:] Uh-huh.
[speaker001:] Or not long enough or, you know, whatever the case may be.
[speaker002:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] I, I think the judges do have that, that better knowledge of it. The only thing I worry about sometimes is if, if you get somebody in there that, that has a name, that is the defendant and, you know, sometimes, might have more pull, which that does happen.
[speaker002:] Uh-huh.
[speaker001:] I mean, we can't say it doesn't, because it does happen. I mean not everybody is, you know, has, has the right morals sometimes. People can be paid off or politically
[speaker002:] Uh-huh.
[speaker001:] or whatever the case may be and sometimes that's not real fair either, though so,
[speaker002:] Well, one of the others things that gets me on, on the juries is that often in the newspaper, I, I tend to hear two things that, well, that go on. One is, you often see in the headlines the big numbers.
[speaker001:] Uh-huh.
[speaker002:] Uh, and many of those get overturned or get reduced in terms of sentences, or get changed
[speaker001:] Right.
[speaker002:] by a judge or an Appeals Court and that never makes the, the press and so, when, uh, you or I as an individual gets on a jury we tend to have certain mental images of what's what because we see the headlines, uh, and we don't have, a-, again, a lot of knowledge, so we don't know what is really going on, what is, uh, really the range of sentences or awards that are, uh, are actually, uh, in the end
[speaker001:] Right.
[speaker002:] applied.
[speaker001:] Right. Well, well, also what I don't think is fair, either, is when you have like a, say a rapist, come in, and, and his attorney gets his sentences, sentencing reduced because he's gone to a lesser charge, like, I don't know what, assault or something or,
[speaker002:] Uh-huh.
[speaker001:] But, which that doesn't make any sense to me either. [this is the second time the person has said 'which that'] I know it's hard to prove rape and whatnot and, and, and the person that was raped or whatever doesn't, I mean it's embarrassing
[speaker002:] Uh-huh.
[speaker001:] and all this other stuff and they, they're put on like, they were the ones that caused it or whatever, but, to me, when you do the crime, then you should pay for whatever you did, and, and you shouldn't be able to go on the lesser charge. I don't, I don't think that's right because all's that's going to do is say, Oh, well, you know, that was a breeze, I can go out and do it again and, you know
[speaker002:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] have the same thing happen. That's, that's not right.
[speaker002:] Well, that's where, uh, the role of juries is, is restricted and, I'm not sure I'd want to change that aspect of it, one is, it's restricted in the sense that, juries only decide the charges that are actually, uh, brought, you know
[speaker001:] Right.
[speaker002:] if it's first degree rape, second deg-, degree rape or whatever, they only get to decide on that, well, okay this person has been charged with first degree rape, uh, and you can decide guilt or innocence on that.
[speaker001:] Uh-huh.
[speaker002:] Uh, such like, maybe in murder they get to choose whether it's, uh, premeditated or one or two of the lesser degrees. The other thing that juries are restricted on and, and at least to me this has been one of the frustrating things in my, even in my own experiences, that you usually don't get to hear all the information.
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] It's what information is presented and, uh, I don't know that juries have a right to know more because in a sense we call those safeguards, but often juries hear only a fraction of the, of the story when they have to decide guilt or innocence.
[speaker001:] And to me, how can you, how can you make a decision if you don't have all of the evidence in front of, whether it be, whether it pertains to the case or not, somebody thinks it, it had, because they've got it there.
[speaker002:] Uh-huh.
[speaker001:] So the lawyers, the two lawyers are the ones that have all the information.
[speaker002:] Yeah, and
[speaker001:] Don't they?
[speaker002:] the truth that's brought out is, uh, as I say, when I've heard about, you know, the oath is to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, is that they want, uh, they don't want, uh, the whole truth. I mean
[speaker001:] They only put part of it.
[speaker002:] you can say, yeah.
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] The, because stories look very different when you hear different parts of the, of the truth.
[speaker001:] Right. Well, that's just like that old witness game, well, it's a game kids play, too, but, uh, somebody did it, just for your train of thought where they, they showed something and they asked, they, there were, uh, like four people,