2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Why, on yesterday afternoon's All Things Considered, did the OPB reporter (April Behr or Emily Harris, I believe?) follow a quote by Bronson James with: (paraphrasing) "in fact, this change may save the State money. According to a study out of California, 75% of hung jury trials plead out before going to trial a second time."

Bronson James never said that it would save the state money. It makes no logical sense that an increase in hung juries would ever save the state money, even if only a quarter of those cases go to trial again. It seems painfully clear that OPB's reporters have a position on this issue and are (whether consciously or not) doing their best to promote that position.

John Foote may have come off a bit rough during the show but he has a point. This show was aired with the conclusions already drawn. OPB did not leave it up to the viewer to make up their own mind. I was very disappointed.

posted 4 years, 10 months ago
view in context

John Foote did not say that the system was weighted too heavily on the side of the defendant. He felt that is weighted SUFFICIENTLY.
There are countless steps taken to protect the accused from being wrongly convicted, from measures required of the police in making arrests, to the requirement of a grand jury, to the jury system itself. This is not system designed for finding innocent people guilty and I truly believe that no prosecutor is in the business of trying to convict individuals they do not believe are guilty.

posted 4 years, 10 months ago
view in context