Originally posted by UniverSoul
-the fact we hire lawyers to speak mumbo jumbo and confuse the jury
Correct. While perhaps not intended this way, the fact is that most trials are now nothing more than a representative from each side doing the best
that they can to attract the jury to their strong points and guide the jury away from their weak points. It's more like two competing salesmen than
-the fact that humans have many psychological flaws that stop them from making a correct decision (judge or jury)
This is a tough one. Yes, humans have flaws, humans can be misled and tricked, and humans can also allow their own biases to affect their decisions.
However, the Constitution does guarantee the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers. The alternatives are not better. At least with a jury it
takes more than a single person's biases to affect the outcome. In other systems where there is no jury the defendant's fate can lie in the hands
of a single jurist or leader.
-the police, evidence and laws are all misleading..
It's hard to say whether the laws and the rules regarding trials and evidence are intentionally misleading or just antiquated. However, I think most
people would agree that the current system is anything but straightforward. As Lincoln said (I'm paraphrasing) anyone who defends himself has an
idiot for a client. It's sad, but it's true. Our system is far too convoluted for a "regular" person to make sense of it.
The finality of the death penalty would indicate that it should not be imposed unless there is absolute certainty. You can't go back and release the
guy afterwards, right?
Perhaps I would support the death penalty if our legal system hadn't devolved into such a circus.