Justice and the Jury System

Justice and the Jury System ver. 1.0.2

“The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter”, Retired

https://gadflyblog.com/tag/justice/

10/29/2017

Introduction

The key to preventing a “Hung Jury” is to vote “Undecided” when the Jury wants a quick vote without examining the evidence and recreating the scenario of interest. A “Not Guilty” or “Guilty” Vote before this in-depth examination of the scenario of interest could very well result in a “Hung Jury”.  When it’s “Guilty” against the “Not Guilty”; I’m right you’re wrong, this discussion can the result in a “Hung Jury”.  It is best to continue with discussions with votes of “Undecided” until a consensus is attained.

In the movie “Twelve Angry Men” the undecided voter, Henry Fonda, voted “Not Guilty” when what he actually wanted was a discussion of the evidence and the scenario of interest.  By voting “Not Guilty” this could have ended up as a “Hung Jury”.  But this writer thinks broadcasting this movie is a good idea, it could help future Juries.

Case Study

 This writer was on a jury in 1997; it was a week-long affair with several idiosyncrasies.  In essence a young male, early twenty, a recent immigrant from one of the war-torn countries where the US had been involved in a major conflict in South East Asia. There were two ethnic “Gangs” in close proximity; South East Asian and Hispanic.

On this occasion a minor of Hispanic origin bought a six pack of beer and went to the nearby lake and consumed an unknown quality of the beer.  He may have had a companion, he may have stashed the leftover beer or he may have consumed the six-pack by himself.  No toxicology report was offered or asked for by the Jury.

In short, the South East Asian Gang (SEAG), who had been playing basketball in a nearby outdoor court, had an altercation with this young, intoxicated Hispanic male on his way home from the lake. At some distance from the SEAG this young man flashed his “Walkman” to the SEAG to make them think he had a gun.

He must have been successful as the SEAG returned to their homes and armed themselves for a Rumble.  The SEAG returned to the neighborhood of the Hispanics.  The young Hispanic with friends went to his home, walking in front of his father, who was consumed with watching daytime TV, and armed themselves with the stash of Fighting Knives (LARGE Double bladed, illegal knives) that the young Hispanic kept in his bedroom.   They passed by in front of his father, watching TV, and proceeded to confront the SEAG at the nearby corner.

The Hispanic Gang (HG) approached the SEAG with open fighting knives hidden behind their backs.  The scene quickly turned into hand to hand combat.  The young Hispanic was chasing the early twenties new immigrant with his large Butterfly Knife. The new immigrant pulled his gun from his waistband and fired about three rounds behind him as he was running.  Evidently the first round hit the young Hispanic in the heart and he was dead before he hit the ground.  The new immigrant tossed the gun in the estuary.

The DA had charged the new immigrant with Murder I, lesser charges were made available to the Jury: Murder II, Man Slaughter or Unintentional Manslaughter. The Judge ruled that the defendant was in possession of an illegal fire arm, no concealed weapon permit, and therefore could not plead “Self-Defense”.

By Friday afternoon the Jury was released to the Jury Room.  A Foreman of the Jury was selected and a blind vote was asked of the members of the Jury.  The count was eleven “Guilty” and one “Undecided”.  Jurors made arguments for their vote. A few more blind votes were taken with the same results (11-1).  The undecided voter was asked to disclose their identity, this writer did.  More arguments took place and more calls for a vote were taken.

One of the female Jurors (Teacher), familiar with this writer’s status at a local institution and therefore was like all the other people she had experienced from this institution to which she had a negative opinion.  In fact previously in the Jury Room she spoke negatively about this writer reading a physics book on acoustic guitars. After that altercation this writer started reading Plato’s “Republic”.  She now accused this writer of being prejudiced in favor of the defendant and he should be removed from the Jury Panel.

During the initial interviews, with the DA and defending counsel, of the Jurors this writer had to confess that he was once a gang leader during his high school days; it was the fad of the time (Westside Story).  The DA asked this writer if he was a minor and he confirmed that he was at this time.  The DA asked him what we did after high school and he told him that most of us joined a larger gang and we had a rumble with another large gang. The DA asked this writer for the names of these gangs and he stated the US Army, US Marines and he had joined the US Air Force.  His assignment was to send in helicopters and aluminum caskets into South Vietnam and send the fallen back to their families for burial.  This Teacher only heard the gang part, of this interview, as the defendant was also identified as a gang leader.

Gangs are a whole new subject to cover, mostly misunderstood by the general public.  From a scientific perspective there is a basic human need to belong to a small group that functions as a family.  When these young people find themselves without family, they choose to form these artificial families.  The causes of their loss of family are numerous and include dysfunctional families (alcoholic, drug addicted or absent fathers), new immigrants from foreign countries often form ethnic specific gangs.  These gangs are not necessarily a negative social group that is going to exhibit violent behavior although their natural instincts are to protect their home territory.  This behavior is common among many mammals of the world.

The Chairman of the Jury asked this writer what he had to say about these charges of being prejudiced, he stated that he didn’t think he was the one with a problem.  The rest of the Jury Panel backed him up on this and this Teacher was now pleading with the Jury to not remover her form the Jury and that she would no longer be prejudiced and would go along with what the Jury had decided.  This made the Jury dysfunctional as this non-proactive stance meant that in function the Jury now had only eleven voting members.  However, it was late on a Friday afternoon and nobody wanted to have to come back on Monday to finish up this public service.   This Jury decided to proceed to a consensus vote.

One of the Jury (twelve college graduates some with much training in making expeditious decisions), asked this writer to take the floor and lead them through his view of the scenario that had taken place. As he progressed to reconstruct the events that led up to this tragedy, others joined in with their observations as well. When he had finished we discussed our options and had verbally agreed to the charge of “Unintentional Manslaughter”.  A Vote was taken and this charge was unanimous.  Maybe because it was late on a Friday afternoon and nobody wanted to come back on Monday, they had a living to make and were not being compensated for Jury duty (not much), except for this writer and maybe a few others, and this was the least offensive charge that could be found for this defendant, which given the extenuating circumstances, was appropriate for this defendant.

The Jury assembled in the court room and the Foreman of the Jury reported the verdict.  The defending attorney was heard say to the defendant that he had been given a gift. Some members of the Jury met with the family of the young Hispanic boy and they felt like we did our duty in convicting the person who took their son’s life.

Who or Whom is really the Guilty Parties

But who or whom are really the guilty parties to this tragedy?  Is it the one who sold a six-pack of beer to this under age young man? Is it the father who was more interested in watching daytime TV than supervising his minor aged son and knowing that his son was hiding an arsenal of fighting knives in his bedroom?  Could it be our Immigration Department and their lack of indoctrination of the laws of our society to these new immigrates?  Could it be the lack of training of Jurors to conduct these meeting and arrive at a just verdict?  It is this writer’s opinion that there are many people and institutions responsible for these tragic events.

A Quick Solution

One Band-Aid approach would be to strengthen our parole boards with knowledgeable, unprejudiced members who are compensated sufficiently for them to take as much time as necessary to see that Justices is the result of our Justice and Jury System.  It could be that the Parole Boards are the ones who can ensure that the courts and Juries are handing down “Just Convictions”.

Q.E.D.

 

Advertisements

The Rescuer Complex

The Rescuer Complex ver. 1.0.4

“The Top Gun National Troubleshooter,” Retired

http:gadflyblog.com/tag/rescuer/

9/29/2017

Introduction

Much information has been written on the subject of “The Rescuer Complex.”  On subjects such as “Adult Children of Alcoholics,[i] it has been observed that the rescue complex is inevitable in children that grow up in alcoholic homes or drug addiction homes.  This observation has been expanded to include “very religious parents.”  Transactional analysis [ii] describes the rescuer complex as one who continually rescues a victim from an aggressor.  In transactional analysis, the aggressor is from the victim’s and rescuer’s perspective.   The rescuer complex can be directed toward the opposite sex.  This behavior has been observed of a teaching pastor in a local church who constantly came to the rescue of women in his church.   Unfortunately, the supposed aggressor now becomes the victim of the aggressive rescuer.  Thus this cycle of aggressor, victim and rescuer continues in a cycle.  The supposed aggressor is now the victim, and the rescuer the new aggressor, so who is going to rescue the new victim from the new aggressor?  The new rescuer is usually called “the organization,” as by now this is an organizational issue.

The Authoritarian and the Authoritative Parent

On reading Dr. Kevin Leman’s latest book “The Birth Order Book: Why You Are the Way You Are,” [iii]  this writer noticed his definition of authoritarian and the authoritative parent, and the different results produced in the children who grow up in these two very different homes.  Other authors have denoted alcoholic parents or very religious parents as having an aggressive communication style; [iv]  Dr. Leman now describes them as authoritarian parents.  Authoritarian parents can also be denoted as parents who have an “I win, you lose” communication style.

A definition of authoritarian and authoritative parents was reported in study by The University of California, Berkeley in 2003: [v]

Authoritarian

“The authoritative parent attempts to shape, control and evaluate the behavior and attitudes of the child in accordance with a standard of conduct, usually an absolute standard, theologically motivated and formulated by a higher authority.  …………”

Authoritative

“The authoritative parent attempts to direct the child’s activities in a rational, issue-orientated manner.  She encourages verbal give and take, shares with the child the reasoning behind her policies, and solicits his objections when he refuses to conform. ………..”

Conclusion

This writer was identified, by his sergeant of flight-line jet engine mechanics in support of LBJ’s war in Vietnam, as a natural born troubleshooter.  That was over fifty troubleshooting years ago and what has been indelibly etched in this mind is this: “Before attempting to solve a problem, the problem must first be properly defined; failure to properly define the problem before solving the problem and taking action on the resulting solution will result in a bigger problem to solve.”   Having properly defining a problem the solution will be obvious.”

The contrast between these two definitions – authoritarian and authoritative parents – presents a very well-defined problem to the origin of The Rescuer Complex being the direct result of a parent’s authoritarian, aggressive, “I win, you lose” communication style, regardless of the type of dysfunctional family of origin, be it alcohol or drug addiction, et al.

Now that the problem has been properly defined the solution should be obvious.  Is it any wonder why many people with this “Rescue Complex” find themselves in a church?  The main mission of the Christian Church is to “Rescue (Save) People”.  Finding the solution to their “Rescue Complex” is the responsibility of the individual.

Q.E.D.

[i] Janet G. Woititz , “Adult Children of Alcoholics”, Health Communication Inc. , Nov 1, 1990

[ii] Eric Berne, “Games People Play”: The Basic Handbook of Transactional Analysis., Aug 27, 1996

[iii] Dr. Kevin Leman “The Birth Order book”, Revell pub., 2009

[iv] Ibid i

[v] Diana Baumrind, http://persweb.wabash.edu/facstaff/hortonr/articles%20for%20class/baumrind.pdf, EBSCO Pub. 2003, PP 890-91

The SINS of the FATHER are PASSED DOWN to the THIRD and FOURTH GENERATION

The SINS of the FATHER are PASSED DOWN to the THIRD and FOURTH GENERATION

Ver. 1.0.4

The Top Gun National Troubleshooter, Retired

https://gadflyblog.com/tag/sins-of-father/

10/29/2017

Introduction

“The sins of the father are passed down to the third and fourth generation” is a quote from the Old Testament of the writer’s observations of history.  Although it is true for fathers and sons as in the case of alcoholism, drug abuse, dysfunctional aggressive communicators, etc. it is also true of the fathers of a nation (the leaders) whose citizen’s sons and daughters and their sons and daughters etc. will be subject to the sins of the fathers of their nation.

On September 11, 2001, democracy changed in the United States of America.  National policy of “We—Win, You—Lose” has been in place since the inception of our nation.  Even in our own Civil War it was “I–Win, You–Lose”.  Negotiating “Workable Compromises” was unheard of even until this day in 2017 with only a few notable exceptions.  Two of those exceptions were the Cuban Missile Crises with Russia during the John F. Kennedy administration when JFK stood alone against the Hawks that wanted to invade Cuba with USA forces and negotiated a “Workable Compromise” with the Russian leader Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev, with the aid of the recently developed Polaris Submarine Missile. During the Richard M. Nixon administration when RMN signed a peace treaty with Ho Chi Minh’s representatives of North Vietnam ending USA’s long involvement in South Vietnam, RMN did not have to win the war as his predecessor LBJ proclaimed “He did not want to be the first president to lose a war”.  All other international conflicts have been “We–Win, You–Lose”.

The Peak of Democracy and Freedom in the USA 

September 11, 2001 was the beginning of the massive terrorism attacks, on the USA and European countries, that we are experiencing to day from large terrorists organizations.  These terrorist organizations such as ISIS and ISIL had their beginnings during the Bush Administration primarily involving the President, Vice President and the Secretary of State.  The Iraq leader appeared to be massing weapons of mass destruction (WMD).   A low ranking thud was evaluated to prominence in the Sunni Muslim Community by this Bush Administration and then, (the USA extinguished him). This prominent Muslim leader had a vision of an Islamic State.  The Secretary of State argued to the United Nations that a Preemptive strike was warranted against the Iraq Sunni Muslim Administration.  The Bush Administration warned the Iraq Sunni Administration of the planned invasion, the Iraq Sunni Administration responded with clearing Iraq of all evidence of WMD’s.

This was the first Preemptive Strike by USA forces in the history of the USA and set in place the Bush Doctrine ofPreemptive Strikes against Terrorism”.   Our reputation as Preemptive Strikers is now cast in stone on the international scene.  Other non-North Atlantic Treaty Organization (non-NATO) Allies, now live in fear that the Americans will strike first and  are now justified in developing Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) capable of reaching the shores of the USA.  The USA can no longer be trusted to hold their fire until provoked; The USA has established a policy of First Strike. These nations feel they must create equal forces to  protect themselves from the Americans.

Loss of Freedom and Democracy in the USA

This new “Preemptive Strike Policy” will not only encourage foreign, non-NATO countries to establish a nuclear threat, but terrorist activities against the USA, and Europe, can be expected to continue and increase; threatening the USA’s democracy and freedom, and the freedom of Europeans. The citizens of the USA will lose their freedom to more regulations and controls enacted to prevent terrorism.   The more regulation and laws we have the more Law Enforcers we will have to ensure compliance with these regulations and laws.  The citizens of the USA will become encumbered with more scrutiny from these Law Enforcers.

The Way Forward 

There is only one way forward for the USA and that is to admit to our mistake of a preemptive strike on Iraq and those organizations forming and following a mission to bring the USA to its downfall.   In effect the USA must repent from its sin of “First Strike” and make amends with the enemies created by this “Preemptive Strike Policy”.  The leaders and representatives of the USA must learn the skill of negotiating “Workable Compromises”; that is actions that are not “I–Win, You–lose”, but “I–Win, You–Win agreements or in other words create Treaties with our adversaries in the world.

This is the only action that will save the USA from destruction that has beheld those counties before us whom created a “Preemptive Strike Policy”.  There are too many countries to name in history that have created “First Strike Policy” to name a few: Germany WWII, Germany WWI, the South USA Civil War, the Romans, and the Persians against the Greeks etc., etc. all of these countries or empires were defeated eventually by their First Strike Victims.  The only way forward is for the USA to abandon this Bush Preemptive Strike Policy and start negotiating Treaties representing “Workable Compromises” throughout the world.

 North Korea

A Preemptive Strike on North Korea, which is developing ICBM’s capable of reaching major cities in the USA, will result in an immediate response by North Korea against South Korea, Japan and Guam, a USA territory and major Pacific US Air Base.  This is A NO-WIN SITUATION for all parties concerned.

North Korea is justified in their fear of a Preemptive Strike from the USA.  What do the North Koreans want (?), probably the same thing that Ho Chi Minh wanted in Vietnam, a unified Vietnam without the interference of the USA Military!  Can the USA prevent the North Korean’s from a preemptive strike against South Korea?  It is unlikely that North Korea would move against South Korea with a nuclear weapon and have no interest in a nuclear attack against Japan. The saber rattling, by the North Korean’s, against Guam is probably just that. The North Korean’s know that the USA cannot stop them from developing a nuclear ICBM capability and they are letting the USA see this for a fact!

Cyber-Attack

A cyber-attack to disrupt the production of weapons grade uranium has been used by USA allies against Iran’s centrifuge operations that produce weapons grade uranium.  To initiate a preemptive cyber-attack on North Korea, be its centrifuges or other infrastructure, would certainly result in cyber-attack retaliations by North Korea against the USA’s infrastructure notably the power grid.  North Korea has already demonstrated its ability to disrupt major businesses in the USA.

Restrained USA

The USA is caught in a Military No-Win Situation with North Korea there is no military solution to North Korea’s ICBM capabilities.  The best result will be obtained by negotiations and limiting the access to nuclear materials by North Korea.  In addition, the best result will be a Stand-Off and a long-term policy to improve the USA’s relationship with North Korea; the USA abandoning the Bush Administration’s First Strike Policy; and establish a policy of negotiating workable compromises.   

Q.E.D