US juries get verdict wrong in one of six cases: study

US juries get verdict wrong in one of six cases: study

www.breitbart.com

So much for US justice: juries get the verdict wrong in one out of six criminal cases and judges don't do much better, a new study has found.

And when they make those mistakes, both judges and juries are far more likely to send an innocent person to jail than to let a guilty person go free, according to an upcoming study out of Northwestern University.

...

"The standard of proof in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt - it's supposed to be a high one....

(visit the link for the full news article)

The United States is not the only nation where we have a jury system, so I am also interested to hear what our British neighbors and those in other countries with juries think. I personally think that 1) juries do sincerely try to do what they are charged with correctly but 2) the description of law from the judge and the presentation of the facts by lawyers is often complicated and glosses over the issues.

Should we keep the jury system? Get rid of it? What might work better?

www.breitbart.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Until someone invents a method of memory extraction and viewing, I don't think we can do much better. Maybe hold multiple trials... two out of three wins. That would probably be pretty wasteful though in cases where there is 100% certainty of guilt, not to mention how long it would take.

The Jury Is Out

I saw absolutely nothing in the article that proved the study was any less fallible than a judge or jury.

Perhaps the source of infallible judgment is explained in the study itself, but until I see it proven, I am not buying this story. :shk:

That's not to say I consider courts infallible by any means.

I'm just saying that I know for a fact that studies aren't infallible either.

Juries tend to believe the stupid old belief that if a cop arrests a person, then they must be guilty. It takes a lot of inner strength to put personal feelings aside totally and hear evidence in a neutral manner.

Also, most juries will give great credence to an eyewitness, and eyewitnesses can be the LEAST reliable witness there is. Virtually ALL of the people being released from Death Row and long prison terms, hundreds so far in the USA alone. were identified by an eyewitness as the perp. They were wrong. Judges who limit defense attorneys ability to cross examine critical witnesses, denial of evidence that shows innocence, it is all stacked against the defendant. So when a jury gets strict instructions from a Judge to think a certain way, they do and bad verdicts are the result. Eyewitnesses are often pressured by the cops to pick out certain people they think are guilty, pressured to ' protect the neighborhood ' by finding a person guilty, etc. If they are wrong, an innocent goes to jail, often for decades, before a DNA test shows their innocence.

We need a better system than this; no doubt the innocent have already been executed. too late for them but not too late for us if we demand change and expect the system to protect the accused; after all, the presumption of innocence is the very heart of our protections against false charges and we do not have to prove innocence, they must prove guilt. But that is all too easy when the prosecutors just want a convviction at all costs to look good, cops will arrest and charge for anything or nothing at all, and Judges are usually just prosecutors who screwed enough people to get elected or appointed to a higher post.

There is not any real way to change it unless the people get riled up, but that is hard to do when the Idol show is on or Paris is batting her eyelashes. God help us all in America; if this is the BEST system in the world, the world is a screwed up mess for sure.

Most prosecutors do not want a conviction just to look good. This scum bag in the Duke rape case is part of a minority. Most prosecutors want to prosecute the guilty, because if they prosecute the innocent that means the guilty is still out there doing more harm.

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Juries tend to believe the stupid old belief that if a cop arrests a person, then they must be guilty. It takes a lot of inner strength to put personal feelings aside totally and hear evidence in a neutral manner.

Jurors all have bias to them. People lie on the stand to destroy peoples lifes. Thats the legal system for you

WRONG!! Prosecutorial Misconduct is at epidemic proportions in this nation. Very few, almost none, of the attorneys that prosecute the accused have no interest if the person convicted is guilty or not, just wehther or not the cae sticks. That is the NORM. Numbers make them look good.

And why should they care if another perp is on the street? Do you think they ha e a conscience about convicting the innocent? Wake up. That is just one more for the justice machine to gobble up. Being guilty helps them sleep better at night most of the time; but there is not ONE prosecutor in this nation who can honestly say that they procede with trials only believing that the defendant is guilty. They place the blame on the jury when a case is overturned on appeal; had they never brought spurious cases to begin with, we would see a lot less prosecutions of the innocent.

Personal example: My daughter was 17 was falsely charged with two minor offenses " disorderly conduct ' and ' impeding the flow of traffic '. She crossed the street with two friends and flipped off a driver who almost ran them over , in a school zone. The cop who charged her, at school, was furious that my kid did not give him the ' respect ' that he craves by confessing It was plainly a personal vendetta by a cop that did not like my kid;my kids are taught to never talk to cops and ask for a lawyer at any hint of a cop hassle. In court, the Prosecutor dropped the first charge ( sticking up ones middle finger at a driver of a car is NOT illegal). the other one he should have dropped but was embarrassed that this fine LEO had made two totally false charges without probable cause, but the Prosecuter was trying to save face for the cop; not seeking justice.

After my attorney caught the cop on the stand telling ridiculous lies, the judge halted the whole trial and asked my attorney to make a motion to dismiss as he had heard enough lies. The charges were dismissed and I am now filing a Federal civil rights lawsuit against the cop and will try and ruin his life. He is a felony perjurer, as are 99% of all cops ( according to Norm Stamper, chief of the Seattle police) and desrves to be behind bars and not carrying a badge and gun. If you or I were charged with felony perjury, we would go to jail; the good old boy system just calls the cops actions ' unintentional but well meaning'; pardon me while I vomit at that one.

The local cops here know me well and never bother me; word got out that I would raise hell until they were exposed as bad cops or would sue and try and ruin them personally. That seems to be the only way to get the attention of the ' servants and protectors ' who see us as nothing more than potential numbers in their sick ' arrest statistics ' game that they all play.

But it all starts with the prosescutors who deicde whetrher or not to try and make a case out of an officers allegations. When they proceed knowing that guilt is uncertain and that the words of the cops is the basis for the primary evidence, then they betray their trust and allow us to become more victims of police harrassment, entrapment,illegal actions, deprivation of rights and wrongful convictions. Prosecutors here are elected, and every election sees them trumpeting numbers of arrests but never ever talking about the quality of arrests and how many were thrown out. Prosecutors are supposed to be cop neutral and seek only justice; that is a bad joke today: Prosecutors are nothing more than another branch of LEO and firmly on their side regardless of evidence or guilt.