[speaker001:] so what do you think of the current jury system
[speaker002:] oh I think basically it works okay the uh I do think that we need to have unanimous verdicts although that can certainly cause problems sometimes
[speaker001:] yeah definite definitely you want the benefit of the doubt and as much on the defendant's side as possible
[speaker002:] yeah absolutely
[speaker001:] make sure you're not getting into a police state or anything close to it
[speaker002:] right absolutely the uh I think that when they have unanimous verdicts in some civil trials I think that's okay but uh I'm not sure if they said we're supposed to just talk about civil or criminal or both
[speaker001:] uh it just said trial by jury it didn't say either
[speaker002:] okay well for civil I think a I think in a lot of cases in civil trials you can have a I think ten to two is acceptable
[speaker001:] yeah I I think there's a lot more shades of gray that are possible and acceptable in civil trials than in criminal trials criminal trials are more of do the facts say that this happened or didn't it happened where in the civil trial there's a more wider range of you know whether this contract was satisfied fully satisfied partly satisfied or so on
[speaker002:] right yeah there's a lot more variation there it's not just did they do it or didn't they do it it's
[speaker001:] so I don't quite like the idea of the in civil trials in sounds like in a lot places the jury comes up with what the award amount should be I think you really want another party you know the the jury just say this is the things we think money should be awarded for and then either the judge or a three judge tribunal coming up with what the award amount should be
[speaker002:] I agree and I agree that the jury in those kinds of civil trials can even apportion the liability if it's a liability type of thing
[speaker001:] yeah
[speaker002:] that it's forty percent this guy sixty the other or whatever but uh in civil trials juries have come up with some really ridiculous awards
[speaker001:] right that get overturned or changed on the first appeal
[speaker002:] right
[speaker001:] where as if they came up with a more reasonable one the first time through maybe you wouldn't need to tie up the system with all these appeals
[speaker002:] right I agree and I think that uh certainly were I in a paralyzed or something I'd want eighty three zillion dollars but uh I think rationally eighty three million dollars or something is probably acceptive because I think what I'd really want would be someone to you know the money to take care of me for the rest of my life
[speaker001:] yeah well the the the
[speaker002:] wish that I had proper care and medical treatment but giving me an extra million and millions of dollars that I couldn't do a damn thing with anyway
[speaker001:] right
[speaker002:] and uh wouldn't really help anybody except the lawyers who'd get their cut of it their half
[speaker001:] and I also think yeah on the same lines the uh punitive damage awards should really go more towards let's say the government and supporting the court system there's no reason an individual person should get the punitive damages I think that's more of
[speaker002:] right
[speaker001:] you know it it's something that doesn't really you know the person is already being compensated for his losses and injuries
[speaker002:] yeah
[speaker001:] the punitive damages are more of a slap on the wrist of the person doing or the corporation doing the injury and having that go to the person who does the suing doesn't quite make sense
[speaker002:] right also punitive damages in general I mean if there's if I'm hurt in a car accident and there's punitive damages of five million dollars against you I'd probably never collect it
[speaker001:] right
[speaker002:] and if it's because your car was bad and it's five million dollars against General Motors that's probably small change to them and it's not really punitive against either one because General Motors five million is nothing and to you since it's uncollectable it doesn't make much difference anyway
[speaker001:] no I think five million dollars would definitely cut into the executive bonuses of GM
[speaker002:] uh I don't know it's a good question I guess it's off the topic we're supposed to be discussing but
[speaker001:] yes yes
[speaker002:] the uh
[speaker001:] and the other thing I guess that was in there was whether the you know the other thing I guess on the topic that I'd bring up is um the insanity defensives I don't never quite liked that temporary insanity
[speaker002:] well I like what some states have including Colorado and Idaho the wording is something like on the insanity it's instead of not guilty because you're insane so they send you to the mental hospital it's guilty and insane something like
[speaker001:] right