2 ms·

Even knowing what I know now, I would have chosen not guilty - the government simply didn't meet the burden of proof, and our civil liberties are important I a

Even knowing what I know now, I would have chosen not guilty - the government simply didn't meet the burden of proof, and our civil liberties are important I admire the principled stance, genuinely, but I’m curious if your stance would be the same if someone was on trial for murdering a child, or something else horrific, and probably has a high likelihood of being a repeat offender. Would you still vote not guilty to protect their civil liberties, if you had information not shared with the jury that removed your reasonable doubt? FWIW, I’m genuinely not sure what I’d do in that situation…

HumblyTossed 2mo ago
> Would you still vote not guilty to protect their civil liberties, if you had information not shared with the jury that removed your reasonable doubt? That is a different scenario to what was described by the person you replied to, no? And if one were to get that information the way you describe, that is surely jury tampering. That should be reported.
mindslight 2mo ago
> I’m curious if your stance would be the same if someone was on trial for murdering a child I don't know, right? This was a case where the harm didn't go beyond property damage. I hope to never have to find out - whether after or during a trial! There are obviously limits to how principled/logical/rational/detached any given person can be.