Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AVoiceOfReason
This kind of rethinking over a decision is common, and not just in jury deliberation; it's given the name "buyer's remorse" in the field of commerce.
The article hinted at what I thought was the case here--some thought Jackson was guilty but the weakness of the prosecution's case made it impossible for them to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the offense charged.
Still, it reads as though those two are disavowing any vote they cast, and that's just wrong--dumb, as many have pointed out. Dumber still will be any that plunk down money for the books.
However, the notion that this jury was dumber than the Simpson panel is hyperbole; they will remain the standard by which others are judged.
|
I don't think there is any question that it is only natural to have a change or heart or buyer's remorse... the question is, should a jury be allow to discuss this with the public at large, after the trial and in addition to this, should they be able to profit from it?
Can anyone give me a reason why either of these points should be allowed?
It seems to me it needlessly belittles the legal system and opens a big door for a mistrial or an appeal.