3 ms·

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Could you give an example? Juries can’t pull people off the street and convict them. Are you saying this evil person is be

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Could you give an example? Juries can’t pull people off the street and convict them. Are you saying this evil person is being charged with a crime they clearly did not commit? Judges have been known to set aside jury convictions when they believe the jury erred on the facts. They specifically give the jury instructions on the matter they’re supposed to decide. Juries are supposed to decide matters of fact only, not matters of law. If the evidence shows that the defendant did not commit the act and the jury convicts anyway, it’ll either be set aside or overturned on appeal. Of course sometimes people are wrongly convicted and punished of crimes, but that happens in every country and it’s always bad and must be fought against.

hgsgm 3y ago
"Matters of fact" vs "matters of law" is a blurry distinction.
- chongli 3y ago
  How so? Matters of fact: What happened on the night of March 17th? Matters of law: What does section 734.3 of the criminal code mean?
vkou 3y ago
> If the evidence shows that the defendant did not commit the act and the jury convicts anyway, it’ll either be set aside or overturned on appeal. By what mechanism? The jury, as ultimate arbiters of fact, have identified that the defendant did commit the act.
- chongli 3y ago
  Only on acquittal. A judge can set aside a conviction if they believe the jury erred. Cases where the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of acquittal may even convince the judge to instruct the jury to acquit. If the jury ignores this and convicts anyway then the judge may set aside the verdict.
  - vkou 3y ago
    Then why even have a jury, if in such a case, the judge can appoint himself as a finder of fact, and by himself determine if someone is guilty or innocent?
    - chongli 3y ago
      Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear: The judge cannot set aside a verdict of innocent. If the jury declares you innocent, you are innocent and nothing can change that. The judge can only set aside a verdict of guilty. This is a good thing! It protects people from a bad jury. I don’t know why this seems so surprising. If you’re found guilty you also have the ability to appeal to a higher court. If your conviction is overturned on appeal then what did that mean? The judge at the appeals court overrode the decision of the jury. This is effectively the same thing as the trial judge setting aside a jury verdict, just with more procedure involved.

hgsgm 3y ago

"Matters of fact" vs "matters of law" is a blurry distinction.

chongli 3y ago
How so? Matters of fact: What happened on the night of March 17th? Matters of law: What does section 734.3 of the criminal code mean?

vkou 3y ago

> If the evidence shows that the defendant did not commit the act and the jury convicts anyway, it’ll either be set aside or overturned on appeal. By what mechanism? The jury, as ultimate arbiters of fact, have identified that the defendant did commit the act.

chongli 3y ago
Only on acquittal. A judge can set aside a conviction if they believe the jury erred. Cases where the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of acquittal may even convince the judge to instruct the jury to acquit. If the jury ignores this and convicts anyway then the judge may set aside the verdict.
- vkou 3y ago
  Then why even have a jury, if in such a case, the judge can appoint himself as a finder of fact, and by himself determine if someone is guilty or innocent?
  - chongli 3y ago
    Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear: The judge cannot set aside a verdict of innocent. If the jury declares you innocent, you are innocent and nothing can change that. The judge can only set aside a verdict of guilty. This is a good thing! It protects people from a bad jury. I don’t know why this seems so surprising. If you’re found guilty you also have the ability to appeal to a higher court. If your conviction is overturned on appeal then what did that mean? The judge at the appeals court overrode the decision of the jury. This is effectively the same thing as the trial judge setting aside a jury verdict, just with more procedure involved.