4 ms·

> It's crazy to me that so much of the American "justice" relies on juries where they are free to ignore any scientific evidence and just vote the way that seem

> It's crazy to me that so much of the American "justice" relies on juries where they are free to ignore any scientific evidence and just vote the way that seems right to them. That's a feature of the system. If we had perfect information and judgement we wouldn't even need courts in the first place. It's also the case that the law itself can be unjust, should it be blindly applied, or is it good that the jury can declare someone not guilty anyways? > At the end it's a matter of which side can build a more passionate argument to sway the juries Right. So it's interesting that the prosecution gets a regular plus a "rebuttal" closing argument that the defense never gets. It's interesting the way courtrooms are laid out. It's interesting that the state in many circumstances cannot supply exculpatory testimony on your behalf, even if they have it. My point being, there are so many more worthy things to consider before presuming juries themselves are the problem. Those who have made these arrangements are happy that you see it this way, though. > rather than what evidence is actually presented and its rational meaning. Do you have some evidence that this occurred in this case? We are examining it more than 20 years after the fact. At the time the jury thought it had the best explanation, and it might have even been "common knowledge." I certainly remember the "shaken baby" period in the zeitgeist of the time. > So yeah of course the American judicial system is not willing to review past convictions based on scientific discoveries Quite the contrary. His first execution was halted and he was granted review under a Texas law commonly called the "junk science law." He quite literally got this exact review. All that being said capital punishment is amoral and especially irreconcilable with all the above facts. In no sense am I defending it, just our system of jury trials.

gambiting 3y ago
>>Quite the contrary. His first execution was halted and he was granted review under a Texas law commonly called the "junk science law." He quite literally got this exact review. Ok, I didn't know that - should have read up more on this case before I commented. >>or is it good that the jury can declare someone not guilty anyways? Maybe. I find it much more troublesome that the jury can be presented with literally undeniable evidence that someone is innocent and still vote guilty anyway. Not that a judge couldn't do that of course - but like I said in my other comment, such a conviction would be a lot easier to appeal against, compared to a conviction made by a jury.
- arp242 3y ago
  > I find it much more troublesome that the jury can be presented with literally undeniable evidence that someone is innocent and still vote guilty anyway. Usually that's not really what happens. It's often woefully inadequate defence (either due to incompetence or because the public defender is juggling 19 other cases), misconstrued evidence, bad evidence (which is more or less what happened here), and things like that.
- acjacobson 3y ago
  I believe that in many cases judges have discretion to reverse a guilty verdict returned by a jury if there are problems with evidence. They can't do this later though - once the verdict is handed down they can't revise their verdict and sentence, as far as I understand. They also cannot do the reverse and unilaterally find the accused guilty over a jury that has voted to acquit.
- blagie 3y ago
  My understanding is that, on paper, to be prosecuted, a few things need to happen: - Law enforcement needs to raise the issue to a prosecutor - A prosecutor needs to pick up the case - A grand jury needs to indite you - A petite jury needs to find you guilty - A judge needs to sentence you with a penalty (as opposed to stern talking to) Each of those is intended as a check-and-balance in the system. All of those have been steamrolled with misaligned incentives, mandatory minimum sentencing, etc., but that's how it's supposed to work.
  - jkaplowitz 3y ago
    Many states no longer use grand juries, and maybe some never did (I’m unsure on this detail). That particular federal constitutional protection has never been held by the courts to bind the states. But yes, Texas does have grand juries for felonies and a few misdemeanors (not most). Tangent: it’s spelled indict, not indite (but it is pronounced as if it were indite)
    - Fezzik 3y ago
      Unless something has changed dramatically since I graduated from law school (2010), 96% of states use grand juries…
singleshot_ 3y ago
> It's interesting that the state in many circumstances cannot supply exculpatory testimony on your behalf, even if they have it. Really? How do you mean?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

gambiting 3y ago

>>Quite the contrary. His first execution was halted and he was granted review under a Texas law commonly called the "junk science law." He quite literally got this exact review. Ok, I didn't know that - should have read up more on this case before I commented. >>or is it good that the jury can declare someone not guilty anyways? Maybe. I find it much more troublesome that the jury can be presented with literally undeniable evidence that someone is innocent and still vote guilty anyway. Not that a judge couldn't do that of course - but like I said in my other comment, such a conviction would be a lot easier to appeal against, compared to a conviction made by a jury.

arp242 3y ago
> I find it much more troublesome that the jury can be presented with literally undeniable evidence that someone is innocent and still vote guilty anyway. Usually that's not really what happens. It's often woefully inadequate defence (either due to incompetence or because the public defender is juggling 19 other cases), misconstrued evidence, bad evidence (which is more or less what happened here), and things like that.
acjacobson 3y ago
I believe that in many cases judges have discretion to reverse a guilty verdict returned by a jury if there are problems with evidence. They can't do this later though - once the verdict is handed down they can't revise their verdict and sentence, as far as I understand. They also cannot do the reverse and unilaterally find the accused guilty over a jury that has voted to acquit.
blagie 3y ago
My understanding is that, on paper, to be prosecuted, a few things need to happen: - Law enforcement needs to raise the issue to a prosecutor - A prosecutor needs to pick up the case - A grand jury needs to indite you - A petite jury needs to find you guilty - A judge needs to sentence you with a penalty (as opposed to stern talking to) Each of those is intended as a check-and-balance in the system. All of those have been steamrolled with misaligned incentives, mandatory minimum sentencing, etc., but that's how it's supposed to work.
- jkaplowitz 3y ago
  Many states no longer use grand juries, and maybe some never did (I’m unsure on this detail). That particular federal constitutional protection has never been held by the courts to bind the states. But yes, Texas does have grand juries for felonies and a few misdemeanors (not most). Tangent: it’s spelled indict, not indite (but it is pronounced as if it were indite)
  - Fezzik 3y ago
    Unless something has changed dramatically since I graduated from law school (2010), 96% of states use grand juries…

singleshot_ 3y ago

> It's interesting that the state in many circumstances cannot supply exculpatory testimony on your behalf, even if they have it. Really? How do you mean?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]