so what do you think of the current jury system
 	
 	
 		oh i think basically it works okay the uh
 		i do think that we need to have
 		unanimous verdicts although that can certainly cause problems sometimes
 	
 	
 		yeah definite definitely you want the benefit of the doubt and as much on the defendant's side as possible
 	
 	
 		yeah absolutely
 	
 	
 		make sure you're not getting into a police state or anything close to it
 	
 	
 		right absolutely
 		the uh i think that
 		when they have unanimous verdicts in some civil trials i think that's okay but
 		uh
 		i'm not sure if they said we're supposed to just talk about civil or criminal or both
 	
 	
 		uh it just said trial by jury it didn't say either
 	
 	
 		okay well for civil
 		i think a i think in a lot of cases in civil trials you can have a i think ten to two
 		is acceptable
 	
 	
 		yeah i i think there's a lot more shades of gray that are possible and acceptable in civil trials than in criminal trials
 		criminal trials are more of do the facts say that this happened or didn't it happened
 		where in the civil trial there's a more wider range of you know whether this contract was satisfied fully satisfied partly satisfied
 		or so on
 	
 	
 		right yeah there's a lot more
 		variation there it's not just did they do it or didn't they do it it's
 	
 	
 		so i don't quite like the idea of the in civil trials in sounds like in a lot places the jury comes up with what the award amount should be
 		i think you really want
 		another party you know the the jury just say this is the things we think money should be awarded for
 		and then either the judge or a three judge tribunal coming up with what the award amount should be
 	
 	
 		i agree and i agree that the jury in those kinds of civil trials can even apportion the liability if it's a liability type of thing
 	
 	
 		yeah
 	
 	
 		that it's forty percent this guy sixty the other or whatever but uh in civil trials juries have come up with some really ridiculous awards
 	
 	
 		right that get overturned or changed on the first appeal
 	
 	
 		right
 	
 	
 		where as if they came up with a more reasonable one the first time through maybe you wouldn't need to tie up the system with all these appeals
 	
 	
 		right i agree and i think that uh certainly were i in a paralyzed or something i'd want eighty three zillion dollars
 		but uh i think rationally
 		eighty three million dollars or something is probably acceptive because i think what i'd really want would be someone to you know the money to take care of
 		me
 		for the rest of my life
 	
 	
 		yeah well the the the
 	
 	
 		wish that i had proper care and medical treatment but giving me an extra
 		million and millions of dollars that i couldn't do a damn thing with anyway
 	
 	
 		right
 	
 	
 		and uh wouldn't really help anybody except the lawyers who'd get their cut of it their half
 	
 	
 		and i also think yeah
 		on the same lines the uh punitive damage awards should really go more towards let's say the government and supporting the court system
 		there's no reason an individual person should get the punitive damages i think that's more of
 	
 	
 		right
 	
 	
 		you know it it's something that doesn't really
 		you know the person is already being compensated for his losses and injuries
 	
 	
 		yeah
 	
 	
 		the punitive damages are more of a slap on the wrist of the person doing or the corporation doing the injury
 		and having that go to the person who does the suing doesn't quite make sense
 	
 	
 		right also punitive damages in general i mean if
 		there's
 		if i'm hurt in a car accident and there's punitive damages of five million dollars against you i'd probably never collect it
 	
 	
 		right
 	
 	
 		and if it's because your car was bad and it's five million dollars against General Motors that's probably small change to them
 		and it's not really punitive against either one because General Motors five million is nothing and to you since it's uncollectable it doesn't make much difference anyway
 	
 	
 		no i think five million dollars would definitely cut into the executive bonuses of GM
 	
 	
 		uh  i don't know it's a good question i guess it's off the topic we're supposed to be discussing but
 	
 	
 		yes yes
 	
 	
 		the uh
 	
 	
 		and the other thing i guess that was in there was whether the
 		you know the other thing i guess on the topic that i'd bring up is um
 		the insanity defensives i don't never quite liked that temporary insanity
 	
 	
 		well i like what some states have including Colorado
 		and Idaho the wording is something like on the insanity it's
 		instead of not guilty because you're insane
 		so they send you to the mental hospital it's guilty
 		and insane something like
 	
 	
 		right