4 ms·

NOT true AT ALL. This is how it's presented to everyone but this is NOT true. A jury decides on the question if it is just/fair for this person to be convicted

NOT true AT ALL. This is how it's presented to everyone but this is NOT true. A jury decides on the question if it is just/fair for this person to be convicted of that crime given the crime, the evidence, the state, and the expected punishment, or any other factor they care about. NOT just if they're guilty. A jury is perfectly free to declare someone not guilty even if they are convinced they are guilty. Seriously, give this as an answer as a first year law student and you fail. No question. Of course, it's how prosecutors present it to the jury (you might ask yourself the question: given that they misrepresent this, how badly did they misrepresent the crime in the first place ?) And, frankly, if you knew how the police and penal system worked internally, you would in nearly every last case vote not to convict. It does not fix the crime, it just creates one more victim, and the system is totally inhumane. Even if someone is a criminal and have stolen, or even raped they do not deserve to be subjected to that. Furthermore, prosecutors lie in court to get people convicted, so how trustworthy is their case, really ? Listen to a few of the dirty tricks police pull to convince juries: https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?t=26m48s https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?t=26m48s Still so ready to convict ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification NO ! Is the only correct answer when on a jury. Ever.

gbear605 8y ago
Come on, there are at least some cases where people deserve to be put in jail. Clear evidence of rape is definitely one of those. Do you actually want to release serial killers caught in the act, just because the penal system is too inhumane for them?
- candiodari 8y ago
  I fully put out that yes, there is probably some level of crime that would justify it. However, for a US state I'd say that there are maybe 1 or 2 individuals per year at most. So in any case you're ever going to see in your life: no they don't deserve it. Even for most violent crimes, year-long torture (which is what generously describes the penal system) is not a reasonable outcome. So in a jury you should always always always vote no.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
kabdib 8y ago
I've served on two juries, on trials 20 years apart and in different states, that involved child molestation. We acquitted one defendant after a day's deliberation. We sent the other to jail for a LONG time after spending half an hour talking about it, it was really crystal clear from the evidence (which included a videotaped confession . . . yet the goober insisted on a jury trial, go figure). I sleep well at nights. Also, if cops seat you in front of a video camera and try to ask questions, don't say anything.
- candiodari 8y ago
  You make it sound like this guy was tricked into confessing. How sure are you that he was guilty assuming his confession was "extracted" ?
  - kabdib 8y ago
    In this case the police did tell him he didn't have to say anything until he'd talked to a lawyer. Then the guy basically broke down, said "I was stupid, I don't know why I did it" and proceeded to tell his tale. Stupid. Really don't say anything to cops, especially if you've been placed under arrest. Given the evidence at hand, we probably would have convicted him anyway. The video was the clincher. Early on the judge mentioned that the defendant had insisted on a jury trial, over the advice of his lawyer (and to some extent the judge, who was broadly hinting that sentencing from a guilty verdict by a jury was going to be a lot harsher than one he could reach with a deal of some kind). I have to say that his lawyer (a public defender appointed to him, since he could not afford his own) was pretty bad, at least by my unpracticed eye.
    - candiodari 8y ago
      Believe it or not, despite the police constantly exploiting people's (legal) stupidity, it should not be a crime. > Given the evidence at hand, we probably would have convicted him anyway. The video was the clincher. If the video of his confession, which you know has been edited by the police and prosecutor's office, I would have voted to let him go. You don't know the pressure that was on the guy during that video, you don't know what else the police left out (e.g. one thing is they do is refusing to help someone, or claiming to refuse, until a confession is extracted and signed, then edit out the part where they refused to help, or lied) What if the person lied and confessed because the police threatened not to call an ambulance for someone ? Ironically, this may very well be the reason the "goober" wanted a jury trial in the first place, as people do that thinking it will provide more opportunities for the truth to come out.

gbear605 8y ago

Come on, there are at least some cases where people deserve to be put in jail. Clear evidence of rape is definitely one of those. Do you actually want to release serial killers caught in the act, just because the penal system is too inhumane for them?

candiodari 8y ago
I fully put out that yes, there is probably some level of crime that would justify it. However, for a US state I'd say that there are maybe 1 or 2 individuals per year at most. So in any case you're ever going to see in your life: no they don't deserve it. Even for most violent crimes, year-long torture (which is what generously describes the penal system) is not a reasonable outcome. So in a jury you should always always always vote no.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

kabdib 8y ago

I've served on two juries, on trials 20 years apart and in different states, that involved child molestation. We acquitted one defendant after a day's deliberation. We sent the other to jail for a LONG time after spending half an hour talking about it, it was really crystal clear from the evidence (which included a videotaped confession . . . yet the goober insisted on a jury trial, go figure). I sleep well at nights. Also, if cops seat you in front of a video camera and try to ask questions, don't say anything.

candiodari 8y ago
You make it sound like this guy was tricked into confessing. How sure are you that he was guilty assuming his confession was "extracted" ?
- kabdib 8y ago
  In this case the police did tell him he didn't have to say anything until he'd talked to a lawyer. Then the guy basically broke down, said "I was stupid, I don't know why I did it" and proceeded to tell his tale. Stupid. Really don't say anything to cops, especially if you've been placed under arrest. Given the evidence at hand, we probably would have convicted him anyway. The video was the clincher. Early on the judge mentioned that the defendant had insisted on a jury trial, over the advice of his lawyer (and to some extent the judge, who was broadly hinting that sentencing from a guilty verdict by a jury was going to be a lot harsher than one he could reach with a deal of some kind). I have to say that his lawyer (a public defender appointed to him, since he could not afford his own) was pretty bad, at least by my unpracticed eye.
  - candiodari 8y ago
    Believe it or not, despite the police constantly exploiting people's (legal) stupidity, it should not be a crime. > Given the evidence at hand, we probably would have convicted him anyway. The video was the clincher. If the video of his confession, which you know has been edited by the police and prosecutor's office, I would have voted to let him go. You don't know the pressure that was on the guy during that video, you don't know what else the police left out (e.g. one thing is they do is refusing to help someone, or claiming to refuse, until a confession is extracted and signed, then edit out the part where they refused to help, or lied) What if the person lied and confessed because the police threatened not to call an ambulance for someone ? Ironically, this may very well be the reason the "goober" wanted a jury trial in the first place, as people do that thinking it will provide more opportunities for the truth to come out.