Guilt and the jury system (split from the cartoon thread)

[OH10]

Its "alleged". Until some undisputable evidence comes to light, or the unit confesses to the crime, they are my brother Marines, and I will defend them and the honor of the United States Marine Corps to the best of my ability.

If it turns out they did infact commit cold blooded murder knowingly, they deserve to be punished accordingly. Until then, they are brother US Marines, who in combat, tried to come home alive.

I couldn't agree more.

But this brings up an interesting point. There is a double-standard emerging about accusations and the individuals accused. Somehow, most alleged criminals are villified in the media and the public just based on accusations. Except for two well-publicized cases. Duke Lacrosse and Haditha. I, of course, agree that each accused individual is entitled to the presumption of innocence and applaud the steadfast defense these individuals have received until proven otherwise. But it's just too rare.

I certainly don't want to see Ann Coulter making any defense based on the presumption of innocence. It's not something she apparently believes in.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Not to take this discussion in the wrong direction, but "presumed innocent" is one of the more widely misused references to american law. It means nothing more than the state has the burden to prove your guilt, versus the law of many countries in which the accused has to establish their innocence. It has absolutely nothing to do with the population, or even the government "believing" you are innocent until proven guilty and such a suggestion is directly contrary to human nature.

 

[OH10]

Not to take this discussion in the wrong direction, but "presumed innocent" is one of the more widely misused references to american law. It means nothing more than the state has the burden to prove your guilt, versus the law of many countries in which the accused has to establish their innocence. It has absolutely nothing to do with the population, or even the government "believing" you are innocent until proven guilty and such a suggestion is directly contrary to human nature.

Which is why the jury system in American is a front. Juries generally believe before opening statement that a guy is guilty if the police arrested him. It's an absurd notion.

Did I just open that can of worms? I really don't want to hijack the thread, but I had to respond.

 

[Jagdaddy]

Which is why the jury system in American is a front. Juries generally believe before opening statement that a guy is guilty if the police arrested him. It's an absurd notion.

Did I just open that can of worms? I really don't want to hijack the thread, but I had to respond.

A front? As you know, there are some standards to be met before someone gets arrested, although cops can be a bit overzealous, and there are then higher standards and the disincentive of prosecutorial embarassment to be met before there's an indictment. So, to the extent that jurors hold that prejudice, and I'm not as convinced that that's as common as you think it is, as you are they're probably right a lot of the time. Regardless, it seems quite clear that the number of defendants who have actually committed crimes that get off due to juries feeling cases haven't been adequately proved is a lot higher than the number of defendants who haven't committed crimes and get wrongfully convicted due to juror bias. The jury system isn't perfect, but many studies have shown that jurors generally take the exercise seriously and try very hard to do the right thing so calling it a front seems wrong.

 

[Bucklion]

A front? As you know, there are some standards to be met before someone gets arrested, although cops can be a bit overzealous, and there are then higher standards and the disincentive of prosecutorial embarassment to be met before there's an indictment. So, to the extent that jurors hold that prejudice, and I'm not as convinced that that's as common as you think it is, as you are they're probably right a lot of the time. Regardless, it seems quite clear that the number of defendants who have actually committed crimes that get off due to juries feeling cases haven't been adequately proved is a lot higher than the number of defendants who haven't committed crimes and get wrongfully convicted due to juror bias. The jury system isn't perfect, but many studies have shown that jurors generally take the exercise seriously and try very hard to do the right thing so calling it a front seems wrong.

Some would say juor bias contributes to real or perceived discrepancies on convictions based on race, for example. Ah hell, this isn't the thread for this...if someone wants to start one, we can continue this there.

 

[OH10]

Some would say juor bias contributes to real or perceived discrepancies on convictions based on race, for example. Ah hell, this isn't the thread for this...if someone wants to start one, we can continue this there.

Agree. If someone wants to branch this off, we can continue.

Regardless, it seems quite clear that the number of defendants who have actually committed crimes that get off due to juries feeling cases haven't been adequately proved is a lot higher than the number of defendants who haven't committed crimes and get wrongfully convicted due to juror bias.

I'm not going to argue with you there. But its more likely that there are a lot of guilty people that never get arrested.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that it's a good thing to keep an open mind before the admissible (synonym for reliable) evidence is placed before an unbiased jury. Unfortunately, I believe its very difficult, if not impossible to get that unbiased jury. And its even more difficult to ask the public to keep an open mind when they are getting conflicting reports in the media.

 

[scooter1369]

A large part of juror bias relates to the media. Long before there is a jury selection, we are hounded with news, especially if its a high profile case.

Case in point, the murder of the mom and her three kids here in C-Bus a few days ago. They arrest the dad, his face is planted all over the tv, internet and newspaper for months before jury selection begins. By the time the trial rolls around, the media has painted him as guilty to the entire public. The jury is selected from local people. All they've heard for three months is "Mr. So and So, arrested for the brutal murder of his estranged wife and three innocent little children, is to stand trial...."

The dude aint got a prayer.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

What's more, often times the media takes some liberties with what has occured. For example - it was reported several times that a Judge in C-Bus let Tim Howard out of jail because he was innocent of the 1977 murder of Berne Davis. Well, Howard was let out of jail, that much is true.. but he was NOT held to be innocent of the murder by any judge. Ultimatley he was not re-prosecuted for the crime (which was an option, upon his release), owing in no small part to the passage of time.

Anyway... Howard recently won the first phase of his wrongful imprisonment trial. Next up - to find how much money he'll get from the state. I wonder if the jury - bombarded with words like "innocent" etc for several years from the media - figured the media knew what they were talking about.

 

[Jagdaddy]

Unfortunately, I believe its very difficult, if not impossible to get that unbiased jury. And its even more difficult to ask the public to keep an open mind when they are getting conflicting reports in the media.

That's why you only need one juror,at least in a criminal case, to think you're not guilty in order to get off. Humans are always going to have biases, but I can't think of a better system of determining guilt or innocence off of the top of my head. As I said before, jurors, dumb as many of them are, generally take their duty seriously, and it's hard to ask for more than that.

 

[OH10]

That's why you only need one juror,at least in a criminal case, to think you're not guilty in order to get off. Humans are always going to have biases, but I can't think of a better system of determining guilt or innocence off of the top of my head. As I said before, jurors, dumb as many of them are, generally take their duty seriously, and it's hard to ask for more than that.

I've never bought into the myth of the "one juror." No one wants to be the one holding everyone up. I think you need at least 2 to get a hung jury.

I think they take their duty seriously, no question. But once someone gets something into their mind, it's a steep burden to convince them otherwise. Take this forum for example. When have you ever seen someone admit they were wrong and change positions?

 

[Jagdaddy]

I've never bought into the myth of the "one juror." No one wants to be the one holding everyone up. I think you need at least 2 to get a hung jury.

I think they take their duty seriously, no question. But once someone gets something into their mind, it's a steep burden to convince them otherwise. Take this forum for example. When have you ever seen someone admit they were wrong and change positions?

It's not a myth. My mom served on a jury that let a guy accused of possession of coke (it was found in his car) off. Everyone thought he was guilty except for one guy who had "reasonable doubt" that the cops might have planted the coke.

Anyone, my original beef was with your use of the term "front" to describe the jury system. I don't think it's a front and, to the extent that its subject to human failings, I can't think of a better alternative. Can you?

 

[Buckeyes85]

When have you ever seen someone admit they were wrong and change positions?

Jurors in Ohio are warned not to quickly express their position on the issue once deliberations begin for the very reason that it is human nature to try to hang onto a position once you have stated it publicly. People are more likely to consider alternate views if they haven't yet gone on the record as to their position. Obviously that does not cure the problem, but I am with Jagdaddy in believing the vast majority of jurors take the role very seriously and do their level best to reach the right decision.

 

[OH10]

Jurors in Ohio are warned not to quickly express their position on the issue once deliberations begin for the very reason that it is human nature to try to hang onto a position once you have stated it publicly. People are more likely to consider alternate views if they haven't yet gone on the record as to their position. Obviously that does not cure the problem, but I am with Jagdaddy in believing the vast majority of jurors take the role very seriously and do their level best to reach the right decision.

Very true. And that is a very important jury instruction. But practically speaking, I'm not sure what effect such an instruction really has on human nature.

It's not a myth. My mom served on a jury that let a guy accused of possession of coke (it was found in his car) off. Everyone thought he was guilty except for one guy who had "reasonable doubt" that the cops might have planted the coke.

That's very interesting, and shocking. Clearly, this case must have been in an urban county. In the country, the argument of planting by the police never flies - at least I've never seen it be successful.

I guess the myth of the one-juror could work if you had someone with a strong bias get passed the voir dire process. Say for instance someone who had coke planted on them once. Maybe I just think it's a myth because I've never seen it in real life before.

Anyone, my original beef was with your use of the term "front" to describe the jury system. I don't think it's a front and, to the extent that its subject to human failings, I can't think of a better alternative. Can you?

Ever seen Minority Report?

No, I can't think of a better system, and there probably isn't one. I guess my overall point would be to say that people tend to think that the system we have is not only the best there is - but that it is infallible. Clearly it's not. My use of the word "front" was a bit harsh I suppose.