[speaker001:] so what do you think of our trial system
[speaker002:] huh I don't really know what to think about it but I do know that they're not you know they'll give somebody twenty five years and they'll serve what eight months
[speaker001:] yeah
[speaker002:] have you noticed that
[speaker001:] yeah I have noticed that that that that kind of stuff does seem to happen quite a bit um
[speaker002:] uh-huh
[speaker001:] yeah I don't I don't I don't even know what to do about that sort of thing
[speaker002:] and uh but I think trial by jury is it's a lot better than leaving it up to one person
[speaker001:] yeah I think trial by jury is very good I actually they said I think the tape said something about changing uh changing it such that or leaving sentencing up to the judge only I think that's actually good idea
[speaker002:] so it leaving it up to the judge
[speaker001:] well just just sentencing not the trial itself
[speaker002:] oh okay
[speaker001:] um because I think that that that that judges are probably more informed as to what is
[speaker002:] yeah well right because
[speaker001:] how serious the nature of the crime is and stuff like that and
[speaker002:] the general public doesn't know that if if if they're sentenced to life that they won't serve life of course the judge will know when he'll be up for parole and all that so yeah
[speaker001:] right right so he'll be able to give them the maximum sentence in some cases there
[speaker002:] okay I must not have understood the whole thing because I didn't hear them say that but yeah
[speaker001:] oh yeah they they they give that as as an example of something that
[speaker002:] uh-huh
[speaker001:] that might happen
[speaker002:] but I think if the entire trial was left to one person I've got a four year old that you can hear but um
[speaker001:] oh yes
[speaker002:] I don't know you people too many people can take vendettas out on people
[speaker001:] right right
[speaker002:] and everything
[speaker001:] or just you know there are two people who say well he just looks guilty um
[speaker002:] right but that's true
[speaker001:] that's actually that's a wonderful way to get off jury duty you know someone says to you you know when they ask you if you uh if you want to be on you know when you're called called for duty say oh yeah I want to be on jury duty because I can spot a guilty person a mile a way
[speaker002:] yeah
[speaker001:] they quickly let you off jury duty I hear um
[speaker002:] right because they they know that you're biased
[speaker001:] oh yeah that that that that that's that's the way it works there um anyway I think that probably for for having it what about you know about being unanimous I mean that's sort of a strange case because I wonder what happens when eleven people thinks someone's guilty and one person doesn't one person thinks that that they're not guilty and they can't decide for hours unless they convince that one person you know
[speaker002:] does it have to be unanimous
[speaker001:] I believe it does have to be unanimous actually
[speaker002:] well then they consider it a hung jury I guess I think and then they uh have a retrial or do they
[speaker001:] yeah I think they either have a retrial eventually or or they call it a mistrial or something I haven't been to law school so
[speaker002:] uh-huh no me neither
[speaker001:] so I don't know much about that I just know that um I wonder because sometimes I think about it actually I think well what if I were that one person and I was completely convinced that that that that this person wasn't guilty you know
[speaker002:] well you don't have to be really convinced that he's guilty it's just if they can't prove he's guilty because
[speaker001:] right uh but I mean what if eleven other people are saying one thing you know and you're you're the one person saying the other thing
[speaker002:] yeah  I would hate to be that person because you would be uh
[speaker001:] you know would you give in
[speaker002:] you know bombarded by all the other eleven jurors
[speaker001:] yeah saying
[speaker002:] to you know just say he's guilty so we can get out of here and go home
[speaker001:] yeah
[speaker002:] yeah
[speaker001:] yeah I wonder about those things you know or even if it's you know I I guess if they were to say well it doesn't have to be unanimous what's the cut off number seven five you know six six you know how do you decide
[speaker002:] um-hum
[speaker001:] is it you know how do you decide what number of people have to say that
[speaker002:] I know it's too bad one of us don't have some knowledge on this huh
[speaker001:] but but um
[speaker002:] I don't I just hope if I ever go to court that they all unanimous on not guilty well you've seen like these TV movies Kyle I'm talking hush but uh
[speaker001:] yeah
[speaker002:] well how they'll you know the through the whole movie you think this person's I don't know but one thing that I thought was pretty weird is how somebody can't be trialed tried tried uh excuse me twice for the same crime
[speaker001:] yeah I've never quite understood that um
[speaker002:] well I just think it's it's weird because I've saw well of course soap operas I'm an soap opera fanatic this one guy had uh framed himself to make it where which he really did kill the person but then he
[speaker001:] okay
[speaker002:] set it up where it looked like somebody was trying to frame him and he was on trial for it and then you know it came out that he was being framed so then he was found not guilty and then just directly after the trial they found out he really was guilty and he couldn't be tried again
[speaker001:] right and they can't do anything about it
[speaker002:] yeah because
[speaker001:] yeah I often wonder about that I wonder if if maybe you know I I I don't I don't I don't know the law on that but if they have new evidence can they can they try retry or can they you know bring you back
[speaker002:] no I don't think they can you know I saw it on LA Law too
[speaker001:] oh actually that's true I've seen the same thing on LA Law as well
[speaker002:] yeah about that woman
[speaker001:] yeah well so I wonder and then I wonder why that you know there there must be some sort of deep seeded reason for that you you know something like
[speaker002:] yes but yes
[speaker001:] something like well you can't be tried for the same trial because that would bias the the the the jury or something or you know
[speaker002:] right and I'm sure that you know it's the lawyers
[speaker001:] yeah
[speaker002:] uh after the uh defendant defending the defendant's lawyer and the prosecuting attorney I'm sure the prosecuting attorney could make a real good case if he you know knew all the details of the defendant's you know case
[speaker001:] in in of the defense in advance yeah well well there's also the issue of for instance you can't um you can't uh very often you can't um when someone is is on trial for something you can't bring up prior convictions
[speaker002:] right like if they're on trial uh trial for rape you can't have any you can't bring up the sexual assaults and stuff or whatever
[speaker001:] which right that's completely beyond me I mean that's just
[speaker002:] yeah I know if it's related they should be able to
[speaker001:] I wonder yeah yeah I mean if this man is is accused of raping someone then I think that something like sex you know the fact that he sexually sexually assaulted someone is a crucial bit of evidence
[speaker002:] yeah right yeah
[speaker001:] that adds to the fact and I I I
[speaker002:] but they're not allowed to do that
[speaker001:] I I often I never understand you know having again having I'm sure there are some deep seated reasons you know to I mean often times I wonder about rules like this and I'm sure that that that there are some reasons
[speaker002:] well that one does seem that one does seem out of it though
[speaker001:] for good
[speaker002:] because it's it well you're allowed to show their character do you know what I mean and if it shows that their character's you know
[speaker001:] right
[speaker002:] capable of lesser assaults like that and stuff
[speaker001:] then right then then
[speaker002:] right that that lead led to that
[speaker001:] then they should be closed yeah I mean that's what I think but I don't um but I don't quite understand
[speaker002:] tell you what we need to do is go into law and then we'll be able to or vote do you vote yeah do you vote
[speaker001:] do I vote oh yeah I vote yes
[speaker002:] okay we you'll help out a little bit
[speaker001:] yeah
[speaker002:] putting the right people in the office that's a lot to do with it too a lot uh a lot of the politics will pass laws and stuff that the um general public wants so they'll be revoted and all that
[speaker001:] oh yeah well that's that's that that's very true but then again often often times they don't as well often times they don't uh they just go you know they're you've got people like who are uh
[speaker002:] right right
[speaker001:] who are you know lame lame ducks and they sort of don't care about anything and just want to go ahead and
[speaker002:] right they sit on the fence so well oh I talked about this the other day they won't say yes and they won't say no to just certain issues just because they don't know what the public wants or the public's split on it
[speaker001:] that's true that's true I often I mean that that like you say that's another discussion but I have had that discussion before as well where you weren't I I wonder about the politics politics of it all so
[speaker002:] yeah right because most of it is politics even in the courts
[speaker001:] yeah well even in the courts you well well they're all appointed
[speaker002:] right
[speaker001:] I mean that's even another another issue you know should should should judges be appointed you know and or or um often times I look at friends we had uh a serial killer around here who killed eleven women
[speaker002:] uh-huh now was that the um green some guy that was attacking women jogging
[speaker001:] choking oh and and choking them yeah uh his name is Arthur Shotcross
[speaker002:] no well did they have a T V movie about him
[speaker001:] I'm not sure if they had one yet but I'm sure they will um because he was he was on some sort of news special though he was he was uh he killed because he was just on trial like maybe a year ago
[speaker002:] well well how was he killing the women
[speaker001:] um he was strangling some of them
[speaker002:] were they jogging on a
[speaker001:] oh no usually they were prostitutes actually
[speaker002:] oh okay
[speaker001:] because he was he was actually this is a very sad case the man was let out he was in prison for um sexually assaulting two children
[speaker002:] oh see that's what I mean then they let them out and then they're able to do it again
[speaker001:] right he he they let him out and then and then he wasn't he wasn't allowed back in the town where he had done this so he came to our he came to Rochester instead and they they they realized later he he'd killed about between eleven and twelve women at least
[speaker002:] I think my sister is married to a guy from Rochester
[speaker001:] and oh really way up north here huh
[speaker002:] yeah yeah way up north well uh I'm originally from Kentucky
[speaker001:] oh okay still way up north sort of um
[speaker002:] so yeah I I'm I was up north too but uh that's one of the reasons I think judges should be the ones to sentence people because they do know you know if you sentence them to three life times then they probably won't get out on parole
[speaker001:] yeah won't get out exactly yeah this this this man was sentenced to I think like three life times but he was you know it was just horrible because um his his his trial was you know was it was it was televised and this and that and what they were pleading was um they were pleading insanity
[speaker002:] uh-huh
[speaker001:] I mean it's clear to me the man is insane and should just be locked up for life
[speaker002:] well of course but they just need to do something with him he needs to be annihilated
[speaker001:] right I mean I don't know what you do with them at that point if you're that crazy but what what struck me is you know they had a psychiatrist testifying for hours and hours and by the end I realized that maybe it would have been better if they had it wouldn't have been a jury of his peers but if they had a jury of psychiatrists instead to sort look at it you know I mean I don't think it's feasible but it would be an interesting thought if you're
[speaker002:] yeah well it's supposed to be a jury of your peers they couldn't have a a bunch of psychotics up there
[speaker001:] no or right right exactly but give them a bunch of psychotics but at least have a have a have a bunch of psychiatrists you know just sort of look at him and decide I mean there was the issue of
[speaker002:] uh-huh did they have a trial by jury for him
[speaker001:] what's that yeah they did
[speaker002:] huh well
[speaker001:] they had a regular trial by jury for him and and