Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For example, in past several years, we have seen numerous convictions for very serious crimes (such as murder) overturned due to new evidence. In many of these cases, the evidence initially presented to the jury was extremely weak, and no competent jury should have convicted based on what had been presented. Some of these verdicts were rendered after less than an hour of deliberation, which is just disgraceful.
Furthermore, we have also seen an explosion of "perjury" and "lying to investigators"-related charges springing up in recent years. These charges are often filed after investigators can't find anything "real" to charge, but don't want an entire investigation to wrap up without charges. It's sort of a catchall charge with some legitimate uses, but also a long history as a bludgeon used to send political enemies to jail.
However, this wouldn't be possible without unthinking jurors, who fail to really examine the substance of the charges, or even to look at what criminality is actually being alleged.
The role of the jury is not supposed to be one of a rubber stamp. The jury is the "trier of fact" in criminal cases. The government has the "burden of persuasion." This means that the first question the jury should ask is NOT "is the suspect guilty" - that comes later. The first question should always be "is the government lying to us?" "Is the government telling us the truth in this case?" The government has the burden of proof.
All this just has to do with juries doing their jobs. We haven't even gotten into issues of jury nullification on policy grounds, which is a separate debate.
Are American juries too uncritical in many cases? Are they sometimes neglecting their roles as triers of fact, and uncritically swallowing whatever codswallop the government tells them to swallow? If so, why?
For example, in past several years, we have seen numerous convictions for very serious crimes (such as murder) overturned due to new evidence. In many of these cases, the evidence initially presented to the jury was extremely weak, and no competent jury should have convicted based on what had been presented. Some of these verdicts were rendered after less than an hour of deliberation, which is just disgraceful.
Furthermore, we have also seen an explosion of "perjury" and "lying to investigators"-related charges springing up in recent years. These charges are often filed after investigators can't find anything "real" to charge, but don't want an entire investigation to wrap up without charges. It's sort of a catchall charge with some legitimate uses, but also a long history as a bludgeon used to send political enemies to jail.
However, this wouldn't be possible without unthinking jurors, who fail to really examine the substance of the charges, or even to look at what criminality is actually being alleged.
The role of the jury is not supposed to be one of a rubber stamp. The jury is the "trier of fact" in criminal cases. The government has the "burden of persuasion." This means that the first question the jury should ask is NOT "is the suspect guilty" - that comes later. The first question should always be "is the government lying to us?" "Is the government telling us the truth in this case?" The government has the burden of proof.
All this just has to do with juries doing their jobs. We haven't even gotten into issues of jury nullification on policy grounds, which is a separate debate.
Are American juries too uncritical in many cases? Are they sometimes neglecting their roles as triers of fact, and uncritically swallowing whatever codswallop the government tells them to swallow? If so, why?
Is it really surprising though? I mean, just look on these boards and you see how unfounded claims, subjective conclusions, and the long list of logical fallacies made in posts daily. Many people don't even understand when you point out a fallacy or the difference between the quantifiable and unquantifiable. How often do we see "what it means to me" and "what I believe" being inserted into place of "what it is" and "what we know". Critical thinking has been replaced with emotional feeling. Logic pushed aside for subjective interpetation.
It is not surprising that this would occur in a jury who often is less concerned with the objectiveness of the trial and more so with what time lunch is served and when they get to go home. Those that are interested, take a personal one and disregard (even after exhausting clarification of proper objective evaluation) a logical process treating the case as if it were a game to which they guess results in hopes of winning the car behind door number three.
My suspicion is that only a small percentage of jurors have actually read the Bill of Rights. That's true for the population at large, but it's rather frightening to think that the people who get to revoke other people's liberty probably have no actual awareness of how that liberty is even defined in the Constitution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
