[speaker001:] Actually, to tell you the truth, I think, uh, jury selection is a, uh, prime, uh, discussion topic in terms of possible improvements on, uh, uh, finding of, uh, guilt.
[speaker002:] Uh, I certainly can't argue with that. Definitely does need some improvements. Uh,
[speaker001:] [Throat clearing].
[speaker002:] and the lawyers can throw people out for no reason whatsoever just because they want to.
[speaker001:] Yeah, I think there's a limit on that. The, uh, the, uh
[speaker002:] I think it's,
[speaker001:] peremptory challenges are limited to, I don't know how many, but you can,
[speaker002:] Four or five, I can't remember which. I was on a jury trial last year only I got kicked out as, uh, the last selection [siren] that the, uh, defense got.
[speaker001:] Um. Yeah, it seems to me I'm always challenged peremptorily also when I go to these things. I think I have a severe demeanor or something.
[speaker002:] Um.
[speaker001:] Uh,
[speaker002:] That, uh,
[speaker001:] But, typically, you know, basic-, uh, typically, uh, everyone gets involved in, uh, the jury process and I suppose an elitist might say, well, you really want someone who is well educated to be able to, to winnow the facts from the, from the prejudice.
[speaker002:] Right, but it still has to be a group of your peers.
[speaker001:] Right.
[speaker002:] See.
[speaker001:] So,
[speaker002:] So, if it's your peers and you're not educated
[speaker001:] So if you're a
[speaker002:] then,
[speaker001:] nincompoop on trial, you'd, you'd have to have
[speaker002:] You want
[speaker001:] nincompoops to, uh,
[speaker002:] you want a nincompoop jury because they'll sympathize with you a bit
[speaker001:] Um.
[speaker002:] as well as hopefully being honest people and do their best to comply with the facts as they were presented to them. So, that's why the defense is there picking through them, whereas at the same time, the, uh, the prosecutor sitting there picking through them because he wants somebody who will give him, uh, a guilty verdict if the facts warrant.
[speaker001:] Uh-huh.
[speaker002:] So, uh, I think the jury selection process is pretty neat, but I don't think that the jury ought to be the ones picking the punishment
[speaker001:] Um.
[speaker002:] afterwards. I think that should be left up to people who have some knowledge in the subject and more knowledge than a jury would have. M-, you're talking about, the person's already been found guilty, right
[speaker001:] Uh-huh, uh-huh.
[speaker002:] and many times I've seen on trials they have on T V, the jury will make a recommendation as to leniency or as to the death penalty or whatever, but I think that it should be up to the judge and the, uh, lawyers to make the decision as to what the actual penalty will be.
[speaker001:] Um.
[speaker002:] Maybe just the judge [sniffing] because they're the people who know what the system is
[speaker001:] Uh-huh.
[speaker002:] and what it's all about
[speaker001:] Uh-huh.
[speaker002:] and believe in the system.
[speaker001:] Uh-huh.
[speaker002:] Uh, and I think that would provide a more fair sentencing procedure.
[speaker001:] Well, I suppose you may be right on that.
[speaker002:] As opposed to an emotional sentencing procedure.
[speaker001:] Matter of fact, I've heard that,
[speaker002:] Also, may be a more consistent sentencing procedure.
[speaker001:] I've heard that some of the information, uh, is prevented from reaching the jury, like, uh, mitigating circumstances or, or preceding, uh, criminal record or things of this nature that,
[speaker002:] Well, preceding criminal record, according to the judicial process has nothing to do with the current crime. But when it comes to, uh, sentencing for punishment, of course, if the person's never done anything bad before, according to the judicial system, then they're going to lean towards a slightly more lenient side, and the jury's supposed to be notified of criminal records when it comes to sentencing by jury.
[speaker001:] Oh, is it? Oh, I didn't realize that. Okay.
[speaker002:] At least in California, they're supposed to be. Not during the trial, during the trial as to whether they're guilty or not has nothing to do with their background.
[speaker001:] Right.
[speaker002:] But when it comes to what kind of sentence you're going to lay down, I think that, uh, that they should.
[speaker001:] Uh-huh.
[speaker002:] I don't, I don't know that they always have because I never sat all the way through a jury trial. They get too boring.
[speaker001:] Uh-huh. So, you, what you're saying is this, if there is the second offense, then you execute them.
[speaker002:] Well, if it's a second offense, the punishment should certainly be more severe than a first offense, because obviously, the rehabilitation process did not work the first time.
[speaker001:] Um.
[speaker002:] So you got to give them either more time in the system or a different process that will hopefully work better. When it comes down to things like alternative sentencing, I'm all for that for, uh, small crimes, infractions and misdemeanors or parking tickets or traffic tickets that have gone to warrant, you give them the option of working off their time doing civil service sort of things.
[speaker001:] What about, uh, white collar crimes like, uh, theft of trade secrets.
[speaker002:] I think those ought to be punished a whole lot worse than they are.
[speaker001:] Oh, really?
[speaker002:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] Like what?
[speaker002:] Well, uh, say, embezzlement, right.
[speaker001:] Ri-,
[speaker002:] You get a guy down the street who comes up, uh, carrying a kni-,