How is this considered a legitimate trial?

[Foo]

I'm sure a fair number of people here are aware of the rationale behind the trial system, most specifically the notion that the victims of crime should not be the arbiters of any punishment meted out to the criminal.

That a legal system seeks justice based upon pre-defined laws passed into being via processes undertaken by intelligent, rational peoples with no vested interests.

Essentially, it's on these points that rise a legal system and the society which it governs above the status of a lynch mob, or less civilised state.

So when you read that audio tapes from the 9/11 flights are being played to jurors to determine whether to convict a man over the attacks, doesn't this seem uncomfortably like trying to bring emotion into play, rather than simply presenting the facts and allowing the jury to make a rational decision?

"A jury in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., heard publicly, for the first time, the cockpit voice recorder of Flight 93 as federal prosecutors used the dramatic recording as evidence that Zacarias Moussaoui deserves to die."
http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-rev ... 43238.html

The worst part of this, that worries me the most, is that no news source even comments on how completely irrelevant such a recording is to the purpose of objectively deciding Moussaoui's guilt.

I don't want to say 'lol America' on this point, either, because the exact same stuff takes place here in the UK too, presumably everywhere. But it's a complete mockery of the concept of a fair judicial system.

[Fender]

You are allowed to do whatever you want during closing arguments. I'm not sure at what point of the trial they are playing those tapes.
Also, isn't the trial already over and he's been found guilty? This is just the sentencing, right?

[Foo]

You are allowed to do whatever you want during closing arguments. I'm not sure at what point of the trial they are playing those tapes.

No, you're not. It's specific grounds for objection in trial by jury if, during the closing arguments, the prosecution attempts to induce an emotional judgement from the jury.

Also, isn't the trial already over and he's been found guilty? This is just the sentencing, right?

The judge passes sentence, not the jury. Since we're dealing with these tapes being played to the jury, I think it's safe to assume it's prior to a jury decision.

[Fender]

The judge passes sentence, not the jury. Since we're dealing with these tapes being played to the jury, I think it's safe to assume it's prior to a jury decision.

It is the second time Moussaoui is speaking to the jurors who will decide whether he is sentenced to die by lethal injection or to spend the rest of his life in the federal prison.

I think you can probably figure out how you are wrong from that quote.

[Foo]

The judge passes sentence, not the jury. Since we're dealing with these tapes being played to the jury, I think it's safe to assume it's prior to a jury decision.

It is the second time Moussaoui is speaking to the jurors who will decide whether he is sentenced to die by lethal injection or to spend the rest of his life in the federal prison.

I think you can probably figure out how you are wrong from that quote.

Regarding the second part of my post, it would appear so. It has no bearing on the first, which you haven't yet replied to.

EDIT: To clarify, it looks like the jury is currently sitting in to establish some extra facts surrounding the trial, the outcome of which will affect sentencing. Indirectly, the article is correct as the outcome of this will determine the severity of punishment. However it appears I'm still correct regarding the role of jury solely to establish fact. I was wrong in my conclusion.

[Fender]

This isn't a trial by jury. This is sentencing.

And I don't think your claim is true, regardless. I'm researching that ATM.

[Foo]

This isn't a trial by jury. This is sentencing.

And I don't think your claim is true, regardless. I'm researching that ATM.

I think I may have become confused with regards the difference between indictment jury and trial jury.

An indictment third jury can recommend sentencing to the judge, and possibly fully determine it.

We're coming off subject, mind. This doesn't have bearing on the absurdity of presenting emotional audio footage to the jury. If you've established that the plane was crashed into the ground, and described how that happened, that seems entirely sufficient. I think playing the actual tape is merely a trick to cause the jury to act on emotion.

[Nightshade]

The jury hands down the sentence, Foo. The judge can alter it, but it's the jury's responsibility.
Yeah, the tapes seem pretty damn irrelevant to me, as Mousasouisusisaii or whateverthefuck didn't actually commit the acts that led to those deaths.

[R00k]

Yea, that's my take on it too. He didn't fly a plane in the 9/11 attacks, so tapes of screaming victims is irrelevant, emotional lawyer-magic.
TBH, it's debateable that there was even a plan for him to.

edit: n/m, don't want to derail the thread.