Jurors Should Go To Prison!

[watson]

I hope the title of this post got your attention. It's my opinion that those who consent to sit as judges (jurors) of others, who don't do their job, convict anyone brought before them by guys in uniform, or blue suits and red ties, so these so called judging jurors, can get back to their 'oh so important' pursuits of banal life as quickly as possible, and thereby ruin and destroy the lives of their innocent fellow citizens brought before them as defendants, (or kill them), that these jurors if their decision is shown to be unfair, without due consideration, due dilligence, or common sense, that upon the eventual proving of their obvious 'wrong' decision, these jurors be considered CRIMINALS, and be sent to prison for the 'remanider' or a 'like' sentance, of what they sentanced the obviously innocent 'victim' to. Maybe this will 'motivate' juries in the US to be CAREFUL and DO their job?
The case in point (among hundreds in the US) New York Times 1-18-07 p.A-12, a totally INNOCENT defendant seved 10 years of hell in prison in the US for a child sex assault he had NOTHING to do with. The evidence against him in Dallas Texas, was next to 'nothing', the 12 year old victim said 'a man with his face covered' assaulted him, he identified the man only by voice as 1 that lived in his apartment complex, the accused, had no criminal record, provided several IRON CLAD alibi witnesses, the Texas jury with no other evidence AT ALL, found him guilty after 46 minutes! He was proven INNOCENT 22 years after the crime by Barry Scheck justice program, and got an 'apology' from the 'gun ho' state of Texas (big deal), but the INJUSTICE (repeated, how many times throughout the nation?) can never be healed, UNTIL jurors are held ACCOUNTABLE for their OBVIOUSLY wrong decisions, by being made to SERVE the time they sentence INNOCENTS to. That would motivate jurors to do a good job! Thoughts?

[apskad]

Crap, crap, crapo di tutti crapi. I had written a wise and well-crafted response, but when I tried to post it, I had timed out and it was lost! How dismaying. I'll try to reconstruct my argument but it will doubtless have none of the original brilliance.:tongue:

I understand this poster's feelings when confronted with injustice. I share them. DNA can be exculpatory evidence and it should be investigated whenever and whereever it exists in a case. The case on which I served had no DNA evidence. In fact, it had no physical or circumstantial evidence at all. All the evidence presented was testimony. As a result, I learned something about our system of justice in the U.S. You don't have to prove innocence, only guilt. Thus factual innocence only matters insofar as (presumably) guilt cannot be proven. Justice depends on meticulous adherence to rules of evidence and procedures. The specific charges in this case were three counts of first-degree rape of a child (which in Washington State is any oral/anal/genital contact with a child--the law makes no distinction between "molestation" or "sodomy" it's all rape.) Ultimately, after all the evidence was in, both sides had presented their case, and the jury retired with the judge's instruction that testimony was evidence that needed to be considered with the same weight as any physical evidence that might exist, I discovered that I believed the victim. The prosecution had proved one of the counts against the defendant beyond a shadow of a doubt--which exceeded their duty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The victim denied one of the other charges on the stand. The third was simply not sufficiently convincingly proven. The victim was 7, and she was three hours into her testimony. I think she was probably tired and disassociating at that point, so it probably happened, but that's not good enough for a guilty verdict. I took the lead in arguing my conviction to the other jurors. Our first poll was 6 to 6. But in the end we were able to reach a unanimous finding of guilt on the one charge.

I feel as though I did my civic duty, and that it was probably the most important thing I've ever done for my community. The presumption of innocence comes into play, I believe, with the realization that any one of us could find ourselves in the dock someday. If I do, I hope that I will have a jury as deliberative and careful as the one I sat on.

[lildoxiedog]

Have you sat on a jury that has made it to verdict? I'm not being sarcastic, I just would like to know if so, has your view on jurors changed?

When I sat on a jury my eyes were opened to our judicial system in a whole new way.

Our case was circumstantial. Yes, we felt like the guy was probably guilty, but the prosecution did not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we had to vote "not guilty". During deliberations, we asked for specific pieces of transcripts and were denied. We were not allowed to take notes during the trial either. The jury doesn't get the "whole" story. You only get the bits and pieces that the judge allows. We were asked to leave the courtroom several times while points were argued.

Did we do our job to the best of our ability? Yes. Do I feel like justice was served? No.

After the trial, the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney came into the deliberation room to thank us for our service. The judge then asked us if we wanted to know whether or not the guy really did it. Most of us left without finding out. We did what we were required to do. Too bad we couldn't do what we wanted to.

[AmyW]

I've never been on a jury, but I would definately look at all the evidence and take my time. I would never come to a quick decision in regards to the life of another person, whatever they did. Everything must be studied and discussed.

[Gaiar]

Iv never heard of a judge asking if they jurors wanted to know if he really did do it or not. That seems like a joke and nothing more. Though Im well aware of some of the judicial systems inherent flaws. Such as not being allowed to be charged twice in light of new undeniable evidence.