The jury shouldn't be deciding legal questions - that's for the judge. A jury is supposed to come to their verdict on a consideration of "matters of fact" (a term of art in the law).
For example, the definition of a particular offense (Grievous Bodily Harm, say) is a matter of law, and not up for debate by the jury. The jury's role is to decide whether or not the accused committed that particular crime; eg, does the evidence support ("beyond reasonable doubt") the conclusion that they throw the punch that the prosecution allege caused the injury to the accuser?
NOT true AT ALL. This is how it's presented to everyone but this is NOT true. A jury decides on the question if it is just/fair for this person to be convicted of that crime given the crime, the evidence, the state, and the expected punishment, or any other factor they care about. NOT just if they're guilty. A jury is perfectly free to declare someone not guilty even if they are convinced they are guilty.
Seriously, give this as an answer as a first year law student and you fail. No question. Of course, it's how prosecutors present it to the jury (you might ask yourself the question: given that they misrepresent this, how badly did they misrepresent the crime in the first place ?)
And, frankly, if you knew how the police and penal system worked internally, you would in nearly every last case vote not to convict. It does not fix the crime, it just creates one more victim, and the system is totally inhumane. Even if someone is a criminal and have stolen, or even raped they do not deserve to be subjected to that.
Furthermore, prosecutors lie in court to get people convicted, so how trustworthy is their case, really ? Listen to a few of the dirty tricks police pull to convince juries:
I've served on two juries, on trials 20 years apart and in different states, that involved child molestation.
We acquitted one defendant after a day's deliberation.
We sent the other to jail for a LONG time after spending half an hour talking about it, it was really crystal clear from the evidence (which included a videotaped confession . . . yet the goober insisted on a jury trial, go figure).
I sleep well at nights. Also, if cops seat you in front of a video camera and try to ask questions, don't say anything.
In this case the police did tell him he didn't have to say anything until he'd talked to a lawyer. Then the guy basically broke down, said "I was stupid, I don't know why I did it" and proceeded to tell his tale.
Stupid.
Really don't say anything to cops, especially if you've been placed under arrest.
Given the evidence at hand, we probably would have convicted him anyway. The video was the clincher. Early on the judge mentioned that the defendant had insisted on a jury trial, over the advice of his lawyer (and to some extent the judge, who was broadly hinting that sentencing from a guilty verdict by a jury was going to be a lot harsher than one he could reach with a deal of some kind).
I have to say that his lawyer (a public defender appointed to him, since he could not afford his own) was pretty bad, at least by my unpracticed eye.
Believe it or not, despite the police constantly exploiting people's (legal) stupidity, it should not be a crime.
> Given the evidence at hand, we probably would have convicted him anyway. The video was the clincher.
If the video of his confession, which you know has been edited by the police and prosecutor's office, I would have voted to let him go. You don't know the pressure that was on the guy during that video, you don't know what else the police left out (e.g. one thing is they do is refusing to help someone, or claiming to refuse, until a confession is extracted and signed, then edit out the part where they refused to help, or lied)
What if the person lied and confessed because the police threatened not to call an ambulance for someone ?
Ironically, this may very well be the reason the "goober" wanted a jury trial in the first place, as people do that thinking it will provide more opportunities for the truth to come out.
Come on, there are at least some cases where people deserve to be put in jail. Clear evidence of rape is definitely one of those. Do you actually want to release serial killers caught in the act, just because the penal system is too inhumane for them?
I fully put out that yes, there is probably some level of crime that would justify it. However, for a US state I'd say that there are maybe 1 or 2 individuals per year at most.
So in any case you're ever going to see in your life: no they don't deserve it. Even for most violent crimes, year-long torture (which is what generously describes the penal system) is not a reasonable outcome.
So in a jury you should always always always vote no.
worth pointing out because i don't know if this is also the case in other countries: if the jurors think the law is dumb, they can return a verdict of not guilty even if there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The non-guilty verdict is final, even in the face of new evidence: “[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” (Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). Sometimes the government gets around this by inventing a new “offence” for the same crime, often at a different political level; for example, you may be acquitted of murder at the state level, but be charged with a “hate crime” at the federal level for the same act.
> the definition of a particular offense (Grievous Bodily Harm, say) is a matter of law
This isn't strictly true - s.18 (GBH) requires intent, which is a question for the jury. Furthermore, what constitutes "really serious" injury is a question for the jury. You can break in down into questions of fact (e.g. Did the defendant have intent? Did the defendant cause these injuries? Are these injuries "really serious"?), but it's not as clear cut as did the defendant throw the punch (they must judge if they consider the injuries to be "really serious", which isn't quite a question of fact).
In addition, juries are entitled to make a decision based on their conscience, per Bushel's case.
For example, the definition of a particular offense (Grievous Bodily Harm, say) is a matter of law, and not up for debate by the jury. The jury's role is to decide whether or not the accused committed that particular crime; eg, does the evidence support ("beyond reasonable doubt") the conclusion that they throw the punch that the prosecution allege caused the injury to the accuser?