Discussion » Questions » Legal » If a jury gets it wrong -- convicts an innocent men, or releases a guilty man -- should the jurors face criminal charges?
flipper

If a jury gets it wrong -- convicts an innocent men, or releases a guilty man -- should the jurors face criminal charges?

Posted - March 26, 2017
Tags : None

Responses


  • 6477
    Well logically I say no - because that's how the system works, the jury must be convinced based on the evidence and if they, having discussed it feel someone is guilty, they have acted in good faith. If we prosecuted jurors no one would do it and that's the point, to be judged by ordinary reasonable people... In general few innocent people are convicted, those who are have, generally opportunities to appeal, and are compensated if unfairly convicted. In actual fact more guilty people are set free than innocent people convicted
      March 26, 2017 12:02 PM MDT
    2

  • " In general few innocent people are convicted, "

    Not true.
      March 26, 2017 3:20 PM MDT
    0

  • 6477
    Perhaps a difference between the States and here.. Innocent convictions tend to be big news here where it happens.. they are mercifully relatively few.  I did try to find figs on this.. unfortunately and logically there are NO figs for those who are guilty but not convicted... makes sense but hard to make a logical comparison. But I do know that the news when someone is later found to be innocent is big - headlines...so this can make us think there is more of that than we think... we don't hear headlines guilty person goes free.. Just throwing a bit of logic in there.
    I did find several articles re America and some re UK... the articles would have us believe the situ is worse in America but as I say without a comparison to those who are guilty... it's very hard to say... 
    Here we do have appeals and people reinvestigating cases where someone maintains innocence.

    As I say pretty hard to find stats on this one... 

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/100000-assaults-1000-rapists-sentenced-shockingly-low-conviction-rates-revealed-8446058.html

    http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/04/28/how-many-people-are-wrongly-convicted-researchers-do-the-math/

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jul/28/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation     an advocacy for wrongly convicted.. kinda makes it hard to be objective. Mentions quashed sentences.. but that means they are not imprisoned and the system has worked to the extent that errors are dealt with within the system...

    I'd like to have been able to provide accurate figs but as I say the data isn't really easy to find and impossible in the case of guilty people who walk away free. This post was edited by Adaydreambeliever at March 26, 2017 3:52 PM MDT
      March 26, 2017 3:37 PM MDT
    0

  • That could be.   Still better to let ten guilty go free than 1 innocent face prison.


    Thanks for posting the Nat-Geo piece though.  Not many post things to support an opposing view
      March 26, 2017 4:12 PM MDT
    1

  • 1029
    12.5 percent of people, on average, are wrongly convicted.  1 in 8.
      March 26, 2017 4:16 PM MDT
    1

  • The numbers are arguable but I agree the numbers are way to high.

    What's crazy is if we take the same percentages and applied to people who lack healthcare or jobs people go ape, but are fine with it on average when it comes to false convictions and think meh.  I would see false convictions as much, much worse.
      March 26, 2017 4:20 PM MDT
    1

  • 13071
    No. It is not a criminal offence to being stupid.
      March 26, 2017 12:04 PM MDT
    2

  • 7795
    No. The lawyers should face criminal time.
      March 26, 2017 12:06 PM MDT
    4

  • 17620
    Whatcha smoking?
      March 26, 2017 3:25 PM MDT
    0

  • Nope, that's not how the systems works here. We've decided to allow these decisions to made by juries and to accept their decisions, no matter how wrong they may be shown to be later on. I certainly wanted to punch some of the jurors in the O.J. trial though, especially after one of them admitted the acquittal of O.J. was "payback for Rodney King" and nothing else. 
      March 26, 2017 12:08 PM MDT
    4

  • 3191
    No.  The jurors are never given all the information.  The judge decides what they are allowed to have presented to them.  Many, many times, jurors have said they would have voted differently had they had information that was witheld from them. 
      March 26, 2017 12:08 PM MDT
    6

  • 6477
    Interesting - I didn't know that..but it has a ring of truth to it - sad if so though :(
      March 26, 2017 12:31 PM MDT
    1

  • Jurors are the unwitting, often reluctant, dupes of clever lawyers who are skilled at manipulating the truth. They are inexperienced and, more often than not, inept. It's the system that needs an overhaul.
      March 26, 2017 12:34 PM MDT
    3

  • 7280
    Didge, I'm not really on board with this comment.---

    My wife and I have both served on juries and that is not typical of our experiences.
      March 26, 2017 2:45 PM MDT
    2

  • I've only been on one and the quality of the candidates was pretty abysmal. First person to be rejected was a university lecturer. First one to be accepted was a young girl who, in the jury room, was completely excited by being called up and whose only field of interest was television soap opera. 
      March 26, 2017 3:21 PM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    Absolutely not---

    While many members of the public may be as surprised or even more surprised than the prosecution was, the fact that a jury acquitted Casey Anthony isn't actually that surprising. The jury simply did their job with the evidence presented and rendered what they felt was a fair verdict under the circumstances. The fact of whether or not she killed her child is not an issue in a trial, as much as the prosecutions need to prove the same beyond a reasonable doubt it.---

    It is sometimes hard for jurors to understand, yet their duty is not to protect a victim, punish a defendant, or worry about the outcome of their verdict. Instead the job of a jury is to hold the state to a certain standard to make sure that the power of the state is not utilized against a guilty or an innocent person if the state cannot prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is important to note that beyond a reasonable doubt is not beyond all doubt and it's not to a mathematical certainty. Nonetheless, it is something that would cause a person to hesitate in a matter of importance in their own affairs. Notice I say hesitate, not fail to act.---

    (I downloaded this shortly after the trial.---Unfortunately I cannot reference it and I was unable to find a current link.)
      March 26, 2017 2:39 PM MDT
    3

  • 22891
    i think so
      March 26, 2017 2:48 PM MDT
    1

  • No.   The Town, County, and State along with the Prosecutor's office should be forced to give above fair compensation to the victim though.

    As it stands an over-turned false conviction results in little more than a " sorry"  and " that's too bad" to the victim.   The courts, State, and Prosecutors really face no consequences for a wrongful conviction,  they only get rewarded for any conviction and that's jacked-up.   They have nothing to lose by trying to gain convictions at any cost.
      March 26, 2017 3:24 PM MDT
    2

  • 17620

     

    That's  not always true. Some states have compensation programs for such released persons.  The Innocence Project is overboard on what they promote, but I do agree about attorney fees and compensation for each year wrongly served along with a lump sum for the agony and mental stress inflicted through the whole arrest and conviction process unjustly.  Once this is in place there should be no provision for civil suits against the justice system by wrongly convicted and released defendants. 

      March 26, 2017 3:38 PM MDT
    2


  • How is the Innocence Project overboard?  The Prosecutors don't care about anything but convictions.  Just like more often than not Police only care about arrests.  The quality of the convictions and fair sentencing is rarely if ever touted or discussed. Just " I got a 90% conviction rate" This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at March 26, 2017 5:45 PM MDT
      March 26, 2017 4:03 PM MDT
    2

  • One obvious flaws with this question ... Who then makes the decision whether the accused was guilty or not to judge the jurors by?
    I think it's pretty rare for most guilty accused to admit yes i did it, so who decides their guilt? This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at March 26, 2017 4:55 PM MDT
      March 26, 2017 4:12 PM MDT
    2

  • 7280
    Yes, if guilt or lack thereof  (as opposed to guilty vs innocent) could be decided without a jury, why would we need juries in the first place.---(I got so wrapped up in trying to find the line to what I posted, I forget to mention that.)
      March 26, 2017 4:57 PM MDT
    0

  • I think we all took that line at first... It was only after reading everyone's comments that i thought about how was the guilt or innocence to be decided then ... Much like who watches the watchers?
      March 26, 2017 5:04 PM MDT
    0

  • 8214
    The should not.  No one would ever agree to serve.  I do however believe if any prosecutor withholds evidence that would prove the person he is prosecuting innocent, he should spend a very long time in jail.  I also strongly believe if someone is a victim of false arrest his record should be wiped totally clean.
    By that I mean if someone turns in a false report to the police and they are arrested that should be completely wiped clean.
      March 26, 2017 4:20 PM MDT
    1