Social Question

Naked_Whale_Tamer's avatar

If you're accused of a capital crime, would you want to be tried by polls?

Asked by Naked_Whale_Tamer (400points) February 1st, 2014

If you were on trial for a major crime that could result in the death sentence or many years in prison, would you feel comfortable in letting the general public decide (binding decision) if you were innocent or not?

From this question:

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

13 Answers

DWW25921's avatar

Innocence and guilt, and even justice itself, are directly related to how much money a person has. In answering your question, if I was rich it wouldn’t matter as I could weasel my way out of it. If I was poor, I’d give a resounding “no way!” and hope my public pretender spends some time on my case.

SavoirFaire's avatar

No. I’d want to be tried by rational people who recognize that the death penalty is abhorrent. In other words, not the general public.

jaytkay's avatar

Oh hell no

bolwerk's avatar

If Amanda Knox is indeed innocent, she has moral imperative to kill the person who wrongfully imprisoned her. That would be my reaction if a fascist thug took away four years of my life.

Kropotkin's avatar

No. Most people aren’t competent enough to evaluate the evidence. I wouldn’t want to be tried by Flutherers either.

This is also partly a criticism of representative democracy.

@DWW25921 This is for you

flutherother's avatar

Yes, I’d be OK with it. This is what would happen after all.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Flutherized non-answer The likelihood I would ever end up in a situation like that are slim to none, so I won’t have to choose or think on it.

Official answer I guess that would depend on my popularity with the public, if I had to gage it on popularity here, heck no.

chewhorse's avatar

ONLY if it were unanimous.. Just like a 12 jurist panel, no one really knows how much tv or newspaper info they received about a subject before they were chosen and for the judge to tell them to disregard what they had previously heard is as ineffecting in the long run as telling a child not to lick a sucker they bought.. Having any other option is just as biased.. a judge for instance is still a human being (some of the time) and what he hears, the info his aides present.. even the books he reads on a subject will determine his judgement even if he doesn’t agree.. So, let the polls decide.. allow the entire world to judge me and if they can’t come to a unanimous decision then call a mistrial and let me go on with my life.. at least in that respect I will know for sure it would a better than 50 – 50 chance for my side as hardly anybody tends to agree with everybody..

ragingloli's avatar

Of course not. I would want to be judged by a trained professional that knows how to evaluate evidence and that is not swayed by emotions or general bigotry.
That is why I find the Jury system so repugnant.

Coloma's avatar

To parrot @jaytkay Hell no!
I’d kill myself first. lol

Pachy's avatar

Trial by poll! I’d rather be tried by Poles.

chewhorse's avatar

Not on my life!! Firstly, polls are anonymous and being anonymous you can vote anyway that you like, even against your own good judgement.. Instead put me up on the stand with 12 jurists who determine through given evidence from both sides and if I’m found guilty at least it was done from the evidence and not how they may have felt at the moment.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther