I'm glad they were held accountable...I worked there and left a year b/f the collapse, but still had my 401K there... The good guys did win...
What's up with that? Why not do the punishment phase this next week? And, why do they get to chill at home till September? If they're going to wait that long, at least have them wait in prison. Is the same jury responsible for sentencing? If so, won't they be tampered between now and September? I just don't get that. Btw, anyone know what prison Lay and Skilling would be sentenced to? Is there a logical one, like the closest federal pen or something like that?
yea, but he'll have to make his own bed. it can't get any worse than that for him. i have the "Smartest Guys in the Room" DVD. i think i'm gonna pop it in again just to hear that guy on the phone say, "arbitrage."
I'm not making any judgement on whether or not these guys are guilty, but I think the legal system is definitely flawed. They are supposed to be tried by a jury of their peers. These are some of the professions of the jurors that found them guilty: Dairy farmer, Office Manager, Teacher, Ship Inspector, Roofing Salesperson, Retired Sales Assistant... Come on, give me a break, why not pull in a grocery sacker from H.E.B while you're at it? Maybe the night shift manager at Whataburger could serve as well? These are the last people qualified to be making a judgement on a corporate fraud case involving complex financial matters.
Why would you say your peer group is determined by your profession? They're peers because they are fellow citizens. Besides, I don't think it'd be a good idea to have someone who was professionally qualified to hear a corporate fraud case. It would case an imbalance of power in the jury room, where jurors would look to one of their number as the expert and he would hold power beyond his own vote. And, if you had 12 such people, it'd be more like having a trial by cronies, not peers, since they'd all identify with your predicament. Besides, while the issues may be complex, you don't need an unusual amount of brain power to comprehend it. The lawyers have been explaining to the jury how these things work for months. If the lawyers did their job (and these are top-flight guys, so I'm sure they did), I'm betting the jurists understood it as well as they needed to.
If this jury was any more blue collar you'd have to call Jeff Foxworthy. I wonder how much of the facts and details of this case the attorneys had to dumb down just so that this jury could somewhat comprehend it? I'm not saying whether or not they are guilty, but simply by being tried before that jury, they were not getting a fair trial.
I'm used to people disagreeing with me. It doesn't mean they're right. In fact, it usually proves that they are wrong.
i don't know much about jury selection, or the legal process for that matter, but i could see Aceshigh's point. if the jury has no financial background, how could they understand alot of the jargon that is finance related? how can you make a fair judgement on something you don't even understand?
I can't imagine anyone in an upper management position wanting to be in on that trial. And they should do a runner. DD
Good post by JV. Aceshigh, I would also like to point out one's occupation, income level, or even education does not necessarily correlate with one's intellect. The International Mensa Society, for instance, exclusively comprises people whose IQs are in the top 2% of the population. These people are from all walks of lives. As it is stated on Mensa's website: "In education they range from preschoolers to high school dropouts to people with multiple doctorates. There are Mensans on welfare and Mensans who are millionaires. As far as occupations, the range is staggering. Mensa has professors and truck drivers, scientists and firefighters, computer programmers and farmers, artists, military people, musicians, laborers, police officers, glassblowers--the diverse list goes on and on."
What Aceshigh means by a jury of his peers is a jury of people who are haughty and think they're better and smarter than the rest of America. What he probably forgot is that the defense lawyers were the ones likely to not include jurors with financial backgrounds. Those jurors are more likely to be harder on the defendants because all the crap going on is giving them a bad name.
Yeah, I bet you'd like to live in an america where we make class distinctions official. Have you ever in your life made this argument when a poor person was on trial for anything? In all fairness though, you aren't the only one, there are definately people who make the "these people aren't peers" argument about the jury of a poor or minority defendent and probably wouldn't make your argument on this case.
