booboobear said:
Juries are made up of people who may not be the sharpest minds on the planet , the fact that a jury either acquits or finds guilty really does not prove anything. A very persuasive jurist can convince others to vote with them.
I agree not one of us can present irrefutable evidence that he is guilty but that is the case in most trials . Quite often your gut feeling is correct , his story just did not sound plausible, I left for 2 minutes because I forgot my gun.
This is however not proof but does raise suspicions.
That first statement is alarming, to say the least. Whether it's true or not, our legal system is based on a jury of our peers. If we're just going to say "Well, we've heard your decision but you're wrong so we won't accept it" then what the hell's the point of having trials? Why not just say public opinion (based in a fraction of the facts & evidence) thinks you're guilty so guilty it is. I would damn well expect a very persuasive jurist to sway others; that's the whole point of having a jury. If you go in with an opinion and won't change it no matter what anyone says, then you shouldn't be a jurist in the first place.
Gut feelings are notoriously wrong. We all love to believe the myth that we truly "know" deep down inside but, sorry, that's a load of hooey. We base that feeling on whatever evidence we first hear, not the totality of evidence. If I show you a picture of an old man and tell you he was seen loitering around school yards where children were later molested (a lie), your "gut feeling" will more often than not tell you he did it.
I don't doubt that you couldn't provide irrefutable proof that he's guilty. But I didn't ask for that either. I think you'd be hard pressed to present the facts of the case beyond that he was away from the car when she was shot. That's nowhere near enough evidence to convict someone, gut feeling or not. There are far too many innocent people in prison (or executed) b/c of gut feelings and that is NOT what out justice system is based on.
Can you imagine explaining to a wrongfully convicted man who had been rotting in prison for 25 years that you convicted him b/c your "gut feeling" told you he was guilty? You wouldn't even be giving an explanation. You might as well say "God told you to convict."
My point is that, when we say we think someone is guilty, what we should really be saying is "Based on the very limited information I have, I think he is guilty/not guilty". And not somehow think that our opinions are in any way relevant, b/c they're not. It's the jury's job to convict - not ours. And if the jury finds a person innocent, as difficult as it may be, I think we should learn to accept it.
