|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 07:21 PM EDT |
I'm not arguing that it's right or wrong. I'm just pointing out that that's how
the jury system works.
I would bet that most juries have the same dynamics of strong
personalities, using prior experience and prejudices, ignoring evidence and
instructions and so on. The only difference here is that we heard about
them.
That's the difference between a verdict delivered by a judge or magistrate
and one delivered by a jury. The judge has to give reasons and those
reasons can be scrutinised and shown to be wrong, if necessary. A jury
doesn't have to give reasons and is essentially inscrutable (media
interviews notwithstanding).
You might find it interesting to learn what happened in the jury room. You
might think that their decision was unjust. You might come to the
conclusion that the jury system is deeply flawed. However, 'runaway juries'
are not grounds for overturning a decision. The jury system is based on a -
literally - mediaeval idea that juries will magically come to the correct
decision. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
