2 ms·

"Proof" in the legal sense is not the same as in the mathematical sense. Courts can decide which witness can be trusted and which can not. You can be sentenced

"Proof" in the legal sense is not the same as in the mathematical sense. Courts can decide which witness can be trusted and which can not. You can be sentenced even if there was a possible explanation how things could have happened without you committing a crime. In the end it matters, what the jury thinks. What the jury thinks about possible rape cases is of course depended on societies overall attitude to the crime and the involved group of persons. To give an extreme example: I would say, that a few years ago, many would never think that a priest could also be a rapist. Without the possibility in mind it is hard to convict somebody of something. So we have to be very careful. There are a few cases of people ruining other peoples lives by accusing them, but most of the time, when somebody claims to be a rape victim and you have found DNA samples, probably it was indeed rape.

oldmanjay 11y ago
Without getting into all the various ways the jury system fails in general, would it make sense to have a more professional jury for sexual crimes? I don't actually know what sort of training might be applicable here but I imagine it could ve more effective than 12 random citizens trying to process things they don't really understand.
- rblatz 11y ago
  Professional juries sound good on the surface, but are really a bad idea when you get into how they actually work. How do you appoint these juries, and how do you measure their performance? If you elect them, they will invariably go tough on crime, and have a huge conflict of interest in finding people guilty. If you don't elect them and they are appointed who appoints them and how can you prevent the ultimate check on the state's power from being corrupted?
- pekk 11y ago
  What standard are you training them to meet? In this thread we are already struggling with "innocent until proven guilty." I don't think the problem is that juries are too stupid.
- coldtea 11y ago
  The whole idea of jury is that the society, and not some "experts" judge a case.

oldmanjay 11y ago

Without getting into all the various ways the jury system fails in general, would it make sense to have a more professional jury for sexual crimes? I don't actually know what sort of training might be applicable here but I imagine it could ve more effective than 12 random citizens trying to process things they don't really understand.

rblatz 11y ago
Professional juries sound good on the surface, but are really a bad idea when you get into how they actually work. How do you appoint these juries, and how do you measure their performance? If you elect them, they will invariably go tough on crime, and have a huge conflict of interest in finding people guilty. If you don't elect them and they are appointed who appoints them and how can you prevent the ultimate check on the state's power from being corrupted?
pekk 11y ago
What standard are you training them to meet? In this thread we are already struggling with "innocent until proven guilty." I don't think the problem is that juries are too stupid.
coldtea 11y ago
The whole idea of jury is that the society, and not some "experts" judge a case.