5 ms·
For good or ill, that's actually a pretty widely accepted legal principle in the American justice system. Jury trials are used to determine guilt or innocence,
by vec 9y ago
For good or ill, that's actually a pretty widely accepted legal principle in the American justice system.
Jury trials are used to determine guilt or innocence, and judges are extremely hesitant to second guess a jury decision under any circumstances. Appeals aren't for relitigating guilt, they are for ensuring that the original trial was conducted fairly and properly. Furthermore, there's a strong bias in all circumstances against reopening closed legal matters. In general, the US court system prioritizes consistency and finality above correctness.
On paper at least, the proper legal remedy for someone who was convicted, who does not argue that their trial was conducted properly, and who nevertheless maintains their innocence is a pardon or commutation from the governor.
This undeniably sucks, but the alternative is to have the court system essentially DDoSed by felons demanding frivolous retrials.
- LordKano 9y agoThe "Justice System" isn't really about justice. There was witness tampering by the police and jury misconduct. Either of those should have been enough to generate a new trial on procedural grounds. I do not know if you're familiar with the case in those documentaries but more than a decade after their conviction, new material was discovered and a DNA test linked a new and different suspect to the crime and under the Arkansas DNA statute, the convicted men should have received a hearing on the matter. The state's attorney argued that the legislative intent of the statute was only to use DNA evidence to prove the guilt of people who had already been found guilty at trial and that no new evidence should be admitted to the hearing. The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants.