Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
that's a shame then, because that's exactly what they do when they instruct the jury that they must judge a case on the facts alone according to the law, as the judge tells them it is. no mention of judging the law itself or the application thereof.
It used to be our system where we demanded the highest degree of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, all we do is determine if the facts are decent enough to vote guilty.
|
So when have you seen the 'decent enough to vote guilty' thing in action? If the verdict was wrongly reached defense lawyers in Florida have 10 days to file a JNOV or motion for retrial after a verdict, and 30 days to appeal.
I'm honestly sick of the Fox news type rants against the 'broken' judicial system.
Jury instructions make it pretty clear that the burden is on the state. If you want a high profile example, see the Casey Anthony case. Did the Jury just decide on the basis of 'decent enough to vote guilty?'
---------- Post added at 09:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 PM ----------
And if you want jury nullification, the option is present at both Grand Jury proceedings and at verdict.
---------- Post added at 09:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 PM ----------
You can talk about 'highest degree of guilt' all you want, but it seems like wrongful convictions on the basis of color were much more prevalent in the past then today. What makes you think it used to be better?
I mean, forget the law. Let's just go by mob rule, right? The law is made by a buncha jackasses way out there in the capital anyway. Let's just string up Jim Crow and feed him his genitalia.