Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Reload this Page >

Naked man arrested at Portland International Airport after disrobing at security

Naked man arrested at Portland International Airport after disrobing at security

Old Jul 3, 2012, 7:46 pm
  #31  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by Upgraded!
The author makes it sound as though the DA decided to prosecute this as a violation in an effort to screw him out of a jury trial, rather than to ensure this guys doesn't end up with a misdemeanor conviction on his record (or something in the middle).
But that certainly has happened in other cases for similar reasons when it's been impossible to get a conviction due to jury nullification. A violation is similar to a traffic ticket: you don't get a jury trial there either.
RichardKenner is offline  
Old Jul 3, 2012, 8:31 pm
  #32  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by RichardKenner
But that certainly has happened in other cases for similar reasons when it's been impossible to get a conviction due to jury nullification. A violation is similar to a traffic ticket: you don't get a jury trial there either.
Not universally true, in Georgia (at least in the Atlanta Municipal Court), you sign a paper with your plea and on it you mark if you waive your right to jury, lawyer, etc. Now admittedly, the same court handles more than traffic offenses as well, but I believe I saw at least one other person there when I was, opt for a jury trial on a traffic citation.
NOTE: I was there on a technicality following a collision I couldn't possibly avoid and the charge for the traffic "violation" were dropped; y'all do not have a criminal here in your presence
TheOneTheOnly is offline  
Old Jul 3, 2012, 8:56 pm
  #33  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Programs: AA EXP, 2mm; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 325
I wonder if those crying foul believe those charged with speeding or jaywalking should be guaranteed the right to a trial by jury.
UshuaiaHammerfest is offline  
Old Jul 3, 2012, 8:57 pm
  #34  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Programs: United
Posts: 2,710
Originally Posted by UshuaiaHammerfest
I wonder if those crying foul believe those charged with speeding or jaywalking should be guaranteed the right to a trial by jury.
Yes, actually I do.
Combat Medic is offline  
Old Jul 3, 2012, 9:19 pm
  #35  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ORD
Programs: AA Platinum, HHonors Diamond
Posts: 1,177
The Constitutional right is granted by the Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed ...
If it's not a criminal prosecution, I don't think there is any Constitutional violation. I am of the opinion that anyone who wishes to be tried by a jury should have the right to do so, but that is only my personal opinion and not anybody's right.
cparekh is offline  
Old Jul 3, 2012, 9:22 pm
  #36  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Programs: AA SPG Amex
Posts: 4,644
Originally Posted by Combat Medic
Yes, actually I do.
Not sure I can agree with you on that one. Think not only of the time and resources this would take in the courts (read: more taxpayer money) but also how many more thousands of people would have the pleasure of receiving a juror summons. Do you really think that twelve of your fellow citizens should lose (at least) a day of their lives because you contested a speeding ticket? If anything, that would make me more likely to convict.

Now, I think municipalities issuing things like jaywalking tickets (like LA) is akin to armed robbery and I find the practice disgusting but I still don't think that jury trials in such cases are the solution.
Upgraded! is offline  
Old Jul 3, 2012, 9:48 pm
  #37  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
It was many years ago, but I was issued a stack of traffic violations in a town known for aggressive traffic enforcement. I did not do any of the things in the citations. (I know, that is what they all say.) I hired a lawyer and the first thing he did was demand a trial by jury. The judge complied and went to the local hardware store and found 12 people willing to serve on the jury. My lawyer had the entire mess thrown out because of the improper jury selection. So at that time in Kentucky, a jury trial for a traffic violation was a right that could be demanded. It may be different now.
InkUnderNails is offline  
Old Jul 3, 2012, 10:10 pm
  #38  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Programs: Ham Sandwich Medallion
Posts: 889
Originally Posted by Combat Medic
Yes, actually I do.
That would hopelessly back up the court system. It could take over five years to get a trial in some jurisdictions if every single violation received trial by jury, or we could just spend even more money we literally don't have on tripling the capacity of the courts.

All criminal defendants should have the right to trial by jury. People pulled over for speeding, stopped for jaywalking, or given some other non-criminal citation still get their trial, but it's in front of a judge, which saves time and money.
T.J. Bender is offline  
Old Jul 3, 2012, 11:57 pm
  #39  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Programs: AA EXP, 2mm; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 325
Originally Posted by Upgraded!
Now, I think municipalities issuing things like jaywalking tickets (like LA) is akin to armed robbery and I find the practice disgusting but I still don't think that jury trials in such cases are the solution.
Originally Posted by T.J. Bender
All criminal defendants should have the right to trial by jury. People pulled over for speeding, stopped for jaywalking, or given some other non-criminal citation still get their trial, but it's in front of a judge, which saves time and money.

Couldn't agree more. Violations/infractions aren't considered criminal. Defendants (at least, in California) are still entitled to have their case heard by a judge. (Whether that results in justice is a separate debate.)

Industry would come to a stand-still if anybody with a lead foot could summon a jury of their peers to hear their case of why they weren't doing 72 in a 65. I have better things to do with my time. The LA jaywalking racket and the SF carpool lane racket may be a sham in their own right, but the notion of a jury trial for every minor infraction is just downright ridiculous.
UshuaiaHammerfest is offline  
Old Jul 4, 2012, 12:27 am
  #40  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by UshuaiaHammerfest
I wonder if those crying foul believe those charged with speeding or jaywalking should be guaranteed the right to a trial by jury.
Yes, trial by jury of one's peers should be a right afforded to all even in situations of speeding tickets or jaywalking. People may waive a jury trial, but it should be an option.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Jul 4, 2012, 12:57 am
  #41  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Programs: AA EXP, 2mm; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 325
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Yes, trial by jury of one's peers should be a right afforded to all even in situations of speeding tickets or jaywalking. People may waive a jury trial, but it should be an option.
While we're at it, let's get juries involved in any civil issue as well regardless of size, like small claims matters. What better way to decide if a landlord should be able to keep a $200 security deposit than with 12 impartial jurors that carefully deliberate the facts of each and every case?

Oh! Parking tickets, too! Why, just the other day I got a $35 parking ticket. I didn't deserve it -- the meter malfunctioned. I am pleased to know that I can summon 12 people to decide whether I really owe the city $35, especially when I know the cost of summoning those 12 people will be far greater than that $35.

</sarcasm>

Jury trials are much more complicated than "Hey, let's get 12 people in a room to vote guilty or not guilty." Jurors have to be properly selected, determined to be impartial, subjected to peremptory challenges, educated on the law via instructions from the judge, and so on. Traffic courts, small claims courts, and the like often hear 20+ cases in a single 3 hour session.

Speeding tickets aren't criminal matters. Neither are parking tickets. Neither are security deposits. They don't meet the standard afforded by the 6th Amendment. They *certainly* don't justify the volume of resources as one would get if facing incarceration and a criminal record.
UshuaiaHammerfest is offline  
Old Jul 4, 2012, 1:57 am
  #42  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,103
Originally Posted by UshuaiaHammerfest
While we're at it, let's get juries involved in any civil issue as well regardless of size, like small claims matters. What better way to decide if a landlord should be able to keep a $200 security deposit than with 12 impartial jurors that carefully deliberate the facts of each and every case?

Oh! Parking tickets, too! Why, just the other day I got a $35 parking ticket. I didn't deserve it -- the meter malfunctioned. I am pleased to know that I can summon 12 people to decide whether I really owe the city $35, especially when I know the cost of summoning those 12 people will be far greater than that $35.

</sarcasm>

Jury trials are much more complicated than "Hey, let's get 12 people in a room to vote guilty or not guilty." Jurors have to be properly selected, determined to be impartial, subjected to peremptory challenges, educated on the law via instructions from the judge, and so on. Traffic courts, small claims courts, and the like often hear 20+ cases in a single 3 hour session.

Speeding tickets aren't criminal matters. Neither are parking tickets. Neither are security deposits. They don't meet the standard afforded by the 6th Amendment. They *certainly* don't justify the volume of resources as one would get if facing incarceration and a criminal record.
A government taking of life, liberty or property -- including via administrative means -- should be addressable by a jury trial. If the government can't afford enforcement via jury trial, then perhaps it ought not to be a priority for the government in the least despite the calls from the apologists of government administrative power over US persons.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Jul 4, 2012, 2:18 am
  #43  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Originally Posted by GUWonder
A government taking of life, liberty or property -- including via administrative means -- should be addressable by a jury trial.
You are confusing due process with trial by jury.
PTravel is offline  
Old Jul 4, 2012, 8:17 am
  #44  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Programs: United
Posts: 2,710
Originally Posted by PTravel
You are confusing due process with trial by jury.
I think what he is saying is that especially in a time where the government says that due process doesn't even mean judicial due process that it might be time for the pendulum to swing the other way.
Combat Medic is offline  
Old Jul 4, 2012, 8:56 am
  #45  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
Originally Posted by Combat Medic
I think what he is saying is that especially in a time where the government says that due process doesn't even mean judicial due process that it might be time for the pendulum to swing the other way.
"Judicial due process" and "trial by jury" aren't the same thing. Everybody is entitled to their day in court, but that doesn't necessarily mean having a jury. I agree with the other posters who are saying there's a point where something is small enough so as not to justify the significant trouble of getting a jury. This is not just to the courts, but to the jurors: how would you feel if your life was disrupted for the purpose of deciding whether or not somebody should pay a small fine?
RichardKenner is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.