With the Casey Anthony, Zimmerman, OJ, and R.Kelly trials, I have a question...

[Type Username Here]

I have a question regarding this. It's an old philosophical and legal question. Assuming these people did the crimes that there is a high probability they did and were accused of, and the jury had reasonable doubt and set them free:


Is it better to let 10 criminals be found not guilty due to reasonable doubt than imprison one innocent person? Would you rather sacrifice that one innocent person to lock X amount of criminals? How many criminals does it have to be before it becomes a matter of public good in your opinion? Obviously there is a number, otherwise we would throw our the justice system completely in any country.

 

[88m3]

Juries don't understand reaspnable doubt to begin with .

 

[Type Username Here]

Juries don't understand reaspnable doubt to begin with .

Explain.

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

My theory is that high profile cases have high profile and/or highly experienced defense attorneys and thus they are able to poke a few tiny holes in the prosecutions case.. or better than a public defender/attorney with minimal resources would be able to do. Then the jurors who are people of average intelligence (remember the saying that they are the "dumbest people in the room" holds true) are totally confused as to what reasonable doubt actually means. The doubt has to actually be "reasonable" not a 1/1,000,000 chance..

As for the Trayvon case, the prosecution did more than enough to secure a manslaughter conviction. What we had here were two possibilities. Either A) the jurors dropped the ball on what constitutes reasonable doubt OR B) and what I tend to believe... a jury with elderly white women are incapable of viewing a black teen as a "victim". I firmly believe those old hags were sitting there going "you know he must have been up to no good.."

IF you want to say the prosecution dropped the ball anywhere it was during jury selection. I think they gave a little too much credit to the idea that these broads were mothers. True, they were mothers but their sons and daughters are white as snow. They needed to get some more racial diversity in there. I know they want to believe that racism isn't what it was.. but that line of thinking will only result in terrible outcomes.

 

[Type Username Here]

My theory is that high profile cases have high profile and/or highly experienced defense attorneys and thus they are able to poke a few tiny holes in the prosecutions case.. or better than a public defender/attorney with minimal resources would be able to do. Then the jurors who are people of average intelligence (remember the saying that they are the "dumbest people in the room" holds true) are totally confused as to what reasonable doubt actually means. The doubt has to actually be "reasonable" not a 1/1,000,000 chance..

As for the Trayvon case, the prosecution did more than enough to secure a manslaughter conviction. What we had here were two possibilities. Either A) the jurors dropped the ball on what constitutes reasonable doubt OR B) and what I tend to believe... a jury with elderly white women are incapable of viewing a black teen as a "victim". I firmly believe those old hags were sitting there going "you know he must have been up to no good.."

IF you want to say the prosecution dropped the ball anywhere it was during jury selection. I think they gave a little too much credit to the idea that these broads were mothers. True, they were mothers but their sons and daughters are white as snow. They needed to get some more racial diversity in there. I know they want to believe that racism isn't what it was.. but that line of thinking will only result in terrible outcomes.

But what happens in a case like Casey Anthony? You don't think that Jury valued the life of that child because she was white? Not trying to discredit your theory, it certainly wouldn't surprise me if true.

 

[Type Username Here]

My theory is that high profile cases have high profile and/or highly experienced defense attorneys and thus they are able to poke a few tiny holes in the prosecutions case.. or better than a public defender/attorney with minimal resources would be able to do. Then the jurors who are people of average intelligence (remember the saying that they are the "dumbest people in the room" holds true) are totally confused as to what reasonable doubt actually means. The doubt has to actually be "reasonable" not a 1/1,000,000 chance..

As for the Trayvon case, the prosecution did more than enough to secure a manslaughter conviction. What we had here were two possibilities. Either A) the jurors dropped the ball on what constitutes reasonable doubt OR B) and what I tend to believe... a jury with elderly white women are incapable of viewing a black teen as a "victim". I firmly believe those old hags were sitting there going "you know he must have been up to no good.."

IF you want to say the prosecution dropped the ball anywhere it was during jury selection. I think they gave a little too much credit to the idea that these broads were mothers. True, they were mothers but their sons and daughters are white as snow. They needed to get some more racial diversity in there. I know they want to believe that racism isn't what it was.. but that line of thinking will only result in terrible outcomes.

Also, very insightful answer but the question remains:

Would you prefer a system where 10 (throwing some arbitrary number out there) criminals go free on "Reasonable doubt" (no matter what your stance is on what that means) so one innocent person is not thrown in prison or the alternative?

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

The Casey Anthony case was all about reasonable doubt, though. Baez did a masterful job at muddying the case. Plus, there is an idea going around that the mothers on the jury could not believe that Casey could ever do that to her own child. People really do put too much faith in humanity.

 

[Black smoke and cac jokes]

Is it better to let 10 criminals be found not guilty due to reasonable doubt than imprison one innocent person?

That person's innocence is worth more than locking away all criminals on the planet.

 

[Teko]

My theory is that high profile cases have high profile and/or highly experienced defense attorneys and thus they are able to poke a few tiny holes in the prosecutions case.. or better than a public defender/attorney with minimal resources would be able to do. Then the jurors who are people of average intelligence (remember the saying that they are the "dumbest people in the room" holds true) are totally confused as to what reasonable doubt actually means. The doubt has to actually be "reasonable" not a 1/1,000,000 chance..
As for the Trayvon case, the prosecution did more than enough to secure a manslaughter conviction. What we had here were two possibilities. Either A) the jurors dropped the ball on what constitutes reasonable doubt OR B) and what I tend to believe... a jury with elderly white women are incapable of viewing a black teen as a "victim". I firmly believe those old hags were sitting there going "you know he must have been up to no good.."

IF you want to say the prosecution dropped the ball anywhere it was during jury selection. I think they gave a little too much credit to the idea that these broads were mothers. True, they were mothers but their sons and daughters are white as snow. They needed to get some more racial diversity in there. I know they want to believe that racism isn't what it was.. but that line of thinking will only result in terrible outcomes.

This is so true! Include the fact that the pepetrator has the right not to submit themselves for cross examination and you have all sorts of killers getting away. There are lots of questions that are still unanswered in the ZM case that the police didnt bother to ask in the taped sessions. No way would ZM be found not guilty had he been forced to the stand. If they are going to give a killer the benefit of reasonable doubt, they have to be forced to take the stand vs. placing so much burden on the prosecution.

 

[Serious]

Juries don't understand reaspnable doubt to begin with .

but you can't knock the hustle

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96sFW-3vGv4"]Jay Z - Can't Knock The Hustle - YouTube[/ame]

 

[nineteeneightysix]

For Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson, if I was on the jury, I would not convict...

As soon as there is a lack of 2 reliable eye witnesses (or reliable video/audio evidence), I think there is reasonable doubt already...

For George Zimmerman, I think he should have been found guilty of man slaughter or something...You don't instigate a fight and then claim self-defence...

For R Kelly, I don't believe having sex with a 14 year old is wrong, and that personal opinion will prevent me from finding an individual guilty of "raping" anybody 14 years and up (if that 14 year old willing participated)...

 

[jwinfield]

The Casey Anthony case was all about reasonable doubt, though. Baez did a masterful job at muddying the case. Plus, there is an idea going around that the mothers on the jury could not believe that Casey could ever do that to her own child. People really do put too much faith in humanity.

The biggest thing with that is they couldn't prove how the child died. If you can't show that the child was murdered, it's gonna be tough to convict someone of murder.

 

[LordTaskForce]

To answer the original question, no amount of guilty people are worth the life of one innocent person thrown in jail imo

Sent from my Gucci Belt via Tapatalk

 

[BIGDENNIS10UK]

I don't believe having sex with a 14 year old is wrong.

 

[DEAD7]

Define Justice?