It may help to know that I've been studying Santa Rosa and Sonoma County politics, economics, and society since 1988, when a proposed project in my own neighborhood demanded my attention.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:
Printable View
It may help to know that I've been studying Santa Rosa and Sonoma County politics, economics, and society since 1988, when a proposed project in my own neighborhood demanded my attention.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:
Personally, I take issue with the premise that none of the women on the jury were, " intelligent, educated, liberated, independent women".
Smacks of condescension because they don't agree with you. Perhaps age isn't the only variant in female diversity..
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
Here's a link to the Board of Supes meeting today:
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...meeting#page=2
I think EC's refusal to resign is simply further evidence of his narcissism, denial, and arrogance. In his mind it's still all about him, not about whether people want him as a representative or whether his fellow Supes want to work with him. It's his position as a Supe--money and power--that played a big part in his actions, and he doesn't want to let go of them. I don't see how he can change if he doesn't.
I'm also having difficulty comprehending his statement that there wouldn't be all this hue and cry now if he hadn't come clean on the witness stand, implying that nobody seemed to be particularly bothered by him before he did, and that now all of a sudden no one wants to work with him or have him in office when everything was fine before. His level of denial is breathtaking.
The other thing that really gets to me is that he is so typical of the general run of sleazebags we are seeing at all levels of government, regardless of party affiliation. Very disheartening. I imagine that's why there are so few good candidates anymore: any body with any integrity and maturity wants no part of it.
same here, thats when i moved from sf with small kids. i voted for ernie last time around, e-tard for that. do you think he needs to resign for the health of county politics? seems like only vested interests still enable creeper carrillo.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
yet they locked on the greater charge and acquitted on the lesser, something hinky with that jury... whats your explaination?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by photolite:
In the modern United States (or at least in the more expensive areas of it, like here), there is no such thing as a lower middle class housewife. in the lower middle class, both parties of a marriage usually need to work. Also, class and intelligence are not the same thing, nor does houswifery reflect on intelligence or liberation.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
That was not my premise.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by photolite:
I speculated that in selecting the jury, Andrian probably "preferred ordinary, lower middle class housewives" over "intelligent, educated, liberated, independent women"; and quoted the one juror who spoke to the PD.
I wrote that I didn't see the jury selection process; so I don't know whether any of the other nine women in fact were more enlightened.
I don't understand your second paragraph: Who doesn't agree with me? What does age have to do with it?
His Supe salary has to be a factor: Andrian doesn't work cheap.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:
Today's PD story quotes Carrillo as saying, “Ironically, it seems that my own testimony, my own honesty and candor, has largely provoked the recent firestorm that occasions this hearing today”.
He apparently can't admit that his apologia didn't convince the public; and that most of us think he was guilty of worse crimes, which the prosecution couldn't prove, and therefore didn't charge.
Another reason "why there are so few good candidates anymore" is that the fat-cats who recruit and finance them want officials who will stay bought -- not honest men and women of character
Absolutely.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:
"Class" is relevant; I haven't written anything about "intelligence".Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sierrarose2:
Let's try it this way: I have speculated that Andrian would prefer a jury of women like the one who spoke to the PD, whose social and cultural background led her to find that Carrillo's behavior -- as described in his own testimony -- was not unreasonable.
Another way to look at this, is in terms of a "jury of one's peers", speaking literally. For example, a Latino gangbanger would stand a better chance of acquittal by a jury of other gangbangers, than a jury of rednecks.
Andrian said he preferred women as jurors; and Carrillo needed women who would not be surprised and offended by his testimony. [Not to mention that there were no witnesses outside Jane Doe's apartment, therefore no charges could be proven.]
Actually, I was surprised to learn that the majority of jurors were women. In my thinking, women would empathize with Jane Doe. Obviously, that wasn't a factor in their decision to acquit him on the grounds of insufficient evidence, which is the way the system is set up. I was just curious as to the reason why the majority chosen were women. They must have given the desired responses to the attorneys.
The other surprise was that Jane Doe's 2 guests were not called to be witnesses. It must have been thought that it would be of no interest, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I didn't read any of the testimony, or watch the trial. I've got too many other priorities. I leave that up to the interested Wacco community to keep us all informed of who's who, and what's what....and maybe who's going to be judged next. Watch out, it could be you, or me~:wink2:
That's what my recent posts have been about, Shandi. I quoted Andrian's statement that he preferred women jurors.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
Neither Jane Doe or her two guests, who were inside her apartment, witnessed Carrillo's actions outside; nor did the officers who responded to her 911 call.
An attorney once told me that since violence against women brings up a woman's vulnerability and fear, they are more likely to see the woman as having a cause in her own victimization, which makes them feel less vulnerable, and thus women jurors are statistically less likely to indict the alleged perp. Male jurors are more likely to view the woman as fragile and in need of protection and thus more likely to indict.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
This is highly relevant, not just pop psych; and it goes a little further than Andrian's similar statement.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Fillie:
No, actually, you stated very clearly that you believed that intelligent women would not have come to that conclusion, and that this had to do with the women being lower middle class housewives.
I agree that there may have been something wonky with the jury decision. Jury decisions are often kind-of strange. I also agree that it would have been in Carillo's best interest to have a jury of people who are not particularly strong critical thinkers, or are prone to making excuses for men's behavior, or are alcoholic partiers. What I do not agree with is your blanket assumption that lower middle class women are less intelligent than wealthier ones,and that housewives are less likely to make reliable jurors.
As for a jury of his peers, my experience with jury duty has been that unless you are a retiree or a teacher, with their generous jury duty benefits, you are unlikely to face one, particularly if your trial is expected to last more than a few days, and that the lower classes are strongly selected against due to the economic hardship of jury duty. The jury duty selection process pushes hard for higher economic groups. We need to pay jurors for their time, and stop subsidizing the process out of our education budgets, to fix this, but it is something of a tangent from this post.
I've been rather surprised by how common subtle, and not so subtle, misogyny is on waccobb, whether it comes in the form of remarks about nipple piercings and motherhood, stalking and craigslist posts, Carillo's motives, or jury selection.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
Please review my recent posts. I have never written that I "believed that intelligent women would not have come to that conclusion, and that this had to do with the women being lower middle class housewives."Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Sierrarose2:
I just replied to photolite,
"I speculated that in selecting the jury, Andrian probably 'preferred ordinary, lower middle class housewives' over 'intelligent, educated, liberated, independent women'; and quoted the one juror who spoke to the PD.
I wrote that I didn't see the jury selection process; so I don't know whether any of the other nine women in fact were more enlightened."
I described the women who comment here, and a few who commented at the PD, as "intelligent, educated, liberated, independent women". I have no idea how intelligent the ten women jurors are; and I haven't commented on their intelligence.
I don't believe that. Sure each attorney gets to throw some one out bu.,t it's based on a long questionaire to weed out bigots, probably people who have been raped, have a bias toward Latinos. I think the jurors are getting short schrift here. What I hear is those jurors don't know what they're doing but we are smarter and have it down. You know poor people have hearts too and minds and may come to a verdict by a diferent route. By the way, I thought the defendant has a right to face his acuser.in court. Did that happen? Hey, Magick, how did you sneak a camera into the courtroom?Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
I have heard and read that there is a whole science and business now to jury selection. In fact, Dr. Phil of all people used to consult with attorneys about the optimal choice of jurors and observe trial runs (no pun intended) of court procedures to adjust legal approaches and advise on how best to win over jurors. That was in the days berfore he met Oprah. So, yes, jury selection is very much manipulated these days, especially for high profile cases.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by meherc:
By the way, in case anyone doesn't know this -the onus is on the prosecutor to prove his case beyond a shadow of a doubt.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
Gaaag!!!Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dian Hardy:
Well, yeah. But what Carrillo is modeling now is how to be publicly humiliated WITHOUT acquiring any humility in the process. He has a long road ahead of him and many people want him to do it out of the public eye. That's where he needs to be because being in the public eye seems to feed his various neuroses/delusions of grandeur.
Some people just fail to make the distinction between compassion/forgiveness and accountability/responsibility. The real time for the former is AFTER the latter have been effected.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dian Hardy:
Perfect words ~ thank you
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dian Hardy:
I commented on Fillie's message,Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by meherc:
"An attorney once told me that since violence against women brings up a woman's vulnerability and fear, they are more likely to see the woman as having a cause in her own victimization, which makes them feel less vulnerable, and thus women jurors are statistically less likely to indict the alleged perp. Male jurors are more likely to view the woman as fragile and in need of protection and thus more likely to indict."
Is that what you don't believe?
"What I hear is those jurors don't know what they're doing but we are smarter and have it down." Your paraphrase is pretty close to my original point. I find it curious that while most of the comments at the PD and here condemned the charges and subsequent verdict, a few here have defended the jurors and their judgment.
"may come to a verdict by a diferent route." That's one of the things I was looking for, but have only the one juror's statement.
The term is: Beyond a reasonable doubt.
From The Free Dictionary:
Reasonable Doubt A standard of proof that must be surpassed to convict an accused in a criminal proceeding.
Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in criminal trials. When a criminal defendant is prosecuted, the prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. If the jury—or the judge in a bench trial—has a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the jury or judge should pronounce the defendant not guilty. Conversely, if the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof used in court. In civil litigation the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that criminal trials can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or in the defendant's death, outcomes far more severe than occur in civil trials where money damages are the common remedy.
Reasonable doubt is required in criminal proceedings under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In in re winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the highest standard of proof is grounded on "a fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free."
The reasonable doubt standard is not used in every stage of a criminal prosecution. The prosecution and defense need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that every piece of evidence offered into trial is authentic and relevant. If a prosecutor or defendant objects to a piece of evidence, the objecting party must come forward with evidence showing that the disputed evidence should be excluded from trial. Then the trial judge decides to admit or exclude it based on a preponderance of the evidence presented. A similar procedure employing a preponderance standard is used when a party challenges a variety of evidence, such as coerced confessions, illegally seized evidence, and statements extracted without the furnishing of the so-called Miranda warning.
The reasonable doubt standard is inapplicable to still other phases of a criminal prosecution. Lower standards of proof are permissible in Parole revocation proceedings, proceedings to revoke Probation, and prison inmate disciplinary proceedings.
"The shadow of a doubt" is sometimes used interchangeably with reasonable doubt, but this extends beyond the latter, to the extent that it may be considered an impossible standard. The term "reasonable doubt" is therefore used.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by meherc:
Beautifully written...compassionate, understanding...looking deeply at the whole situation and the positive aspects that can be gained from falling from grace. May we all practice forgiveness and support each other in our humanness, our efforts to atone for the mistakes we've made. Let him who has not sinned cast the first stone.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dian Hardy:
Hmm. how much paper does it take to admit we are all human beings and have the same human rights?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Geoff Johnson:
A great deal, I'm afraid. People have been arguing for centuries over the definitions of "human beings" and "human rights".Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by GardenGoddess:
150 years ago, black Africans were considered subhuman in America, justifying enslaving them. That thinking still prevails in other parts of the world, among various racial, ethnic, and religious groups.
"Human rights" are a far more arguable concept. As a rule, people have only whatever rights their leaders allow them -- or that they can seize and hold.
Perhaps his refusal to resign is because so many people are asking him NOT TO RESIGN. He can overcome his problems and become a better person... if he chooses to, and I think that he has. Now, we shall see.
Tom
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:
Carrillo has stated a couple of times that he was elected to represent the 5th District and that he would continue to do so until his constituents told him otherwise. I'm sure what he has in mind is waiting for 2 years until the next election, figuring things will have died down by then or he can move on to some other position. He knows a recall vote would be too expensive, and he has chosen to disregard all the calls from regular people to resign. But maybe all the people in his district who want him to go should flood him with emails demanding his resignation and cc his colleagues on the Board. I'm also wondering what happened to that online petition I signed that demanded his resignation. I'll have to look into that.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by GardenGoddess:
At the Supes' meeting, people wanting him to resign outnumbered his supporters 2 to 1. Not sure where you got the idea of "so many people asking him not to resign?" Also, the other Supes got a great deal of input from people wanting him out before that meeting.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by tomcat: