In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

?
"Evan" wrote
Anyone that tries to kill their child is mentally ill. Nothing to
debate.



Which is EXACTLY why you would NOT make a perfect juror, your
mind is already made up based on the barest understanding of the
concept and not even the faintest whiff of the evidence...

Let's see how it plays out. Lawyers will try all sorts of pleas, but any
mother that tries to kill her child is not normal. I don't see how that can
be debated.
There is mental illness and then there is LEGAL mental illness. Two
VERY different animals. Legally mentally ill basically boils down to can
they form intent. While obviously a major looney turner, the AZ shooter
will most likely NOT be judged legally insane, since there was planning,
and intent behind it.


So in your eyes, would a booking picture of someone with red
bloodshot eyes be the only thing you would need to see to find
someone guilty of DUI ?

No, but a field sobriety test and a follow up breathalyzer will do.
Well, that and some indication he/she was actually in the car on the
driver's side (g).



belief that anyone who tries to kill their child is mentally
ill, you would have to find the accused not guilty by reason
of mental illness or defect OR be dishonest and make
a the choice wanting to hear nothing beyond what you
had already decided the first day in court when you were
being empaneled as a juror...

I'd be honest. Mentally ill. See, that was quick and in these days of tough
times, very cost effective.

But LEGALLY mentally ill? You may believe going in that a person is
clincally mentally ill, but wouldn't you still have to look at the
evidence for the legal definition?

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke