4 ms·
The solution to that is pretty simple: vote not guilty, and refuse to budge. If you need any clarification, the prosecution has not done their job. In a crimina
by ewjordan 10y ago
The solution to that is pretty simple: vote not guilty, and refuse to budge. If you need any clarification, the prosecution has not done their job. In a criminal trial, you're not there to figure out what happened, you're there to judge whether it has been established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
Whether the defense or prosecution made mistakes, if you're left with a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty (and I personally consider it the case that inept defense can cause reasonable doubt, unless the prosecution presents an airtight case - a lot of people, including most of my lawyer friends, would disagree with me there), don't vote to convict.
- phil21 10y agoIf the jury is comprised of HN readers, you'd be correct. They are not. And it's on purpose that they are not. That is my main problem with juries. Whatever they are, they are decidedly not a jury of my peers. They are people who are selected to be as dumb and open to suggestion as possible. Effectively a popularity contest between counsel. One day in a courtroom during jury selection should show any thinking individual that the whole process is a complete farce. Only the least capable (in general) end up on juries - and it's entirely by design.
- refurb 10y agoExactly. The default judgement is "not guilty". The burden is on the gov't to prove it's case. If the gov't fails to do so, either because they didn't explain things well or asked the wrong questions of witnesses, then you vote not guilty.