Jury Service (Do NOT turn this into a 'how to get out of jury service' thread)
- Thread starter jcr
- Start date
Caporegime
Its something that people always harp on about. "Why do we only have X% conviction rates for rapes". Its because some crimes are very hard to prove and very hard to prosecute on. If you don't have the evidence for a conviction then a court case is expensive, a waste of time and traumatic for people at times.
It would be nice if criminals put their hands up and admitted to their crimes but they don't unsurprisingly.
Soldato
You are saying the defendants are guilty as hell in your last jury service, while also saying there is not enough evidence.
If there is not enough evidence, then how are they guilty as hell?
Caporegime
Because thats not how the legal system works. You have to be certain beyond any reasonable doubt based on the evidence in front of you. The defendants were both in prison currently. We were told about their other crimes in the same area around the same time that they had admitted to and were serving time for. They were in the right area at the right time and it fitted their MO. I would have put quite a lot of money on it being them. We all thought it was them. We all agreed that the evidence simply didn't prove it.
The problem was that the only evidence that the prosecution could offer that related to this specific crime was cell tower records and ANPR data. ANPR put them in the rough area and cell towers put them in the rough area but that isn't enough proof. There was no physical evidence and they were smart enough to wear balaclavas so they couldn't be identified. Someone being within half a mile of a crime scene at the precise time a crime was committed isn't enough.
There was a lot of circumstantial evidence but nothing that was enough.
Soldato
Yes and you saying "guilty as hell", means that you are certain beyond any reasonable doubt based on the evidence in front of you.
If you said probably guilty, then everything would be fine, the problem is you believe they are guilty, while then voting not guilty??
Caporegime
Because me being pretty damn sure they are guilty doesn't mean that I should find them guilty if the evidence is not there to make that decision 99% guaranteed.
You can be very sure of something and still end up being wrong. Thats why the burden of proof has to be so high. That was my opinion they were "guilty as hell" but you shouldn't be basing your verdict on your opinion if there is not sufficient evidence to back it up.
Commissario
A bit like Maddie's parents?
Or O.J.?
Or O.J.?
I think this is borderline in breach of
"(Do NOT turn this into a 'how to get out of jury service' thread)"
Soldato
You are in a paradox and not realizing it. He is guilty but there is not enough evidence.
How how then is he guilty? Your verdict should be your opinion, they are not separate things.
@fez while you're not going into specifics, anyone familiar with the case you were on could possibly figure out what the case was based on what you've shared here. When I was on my service, we were told under no circumstance can we discuss any aspect of the case outside of the court, even with those closest to us. To this day I still haven't spoken of it and it's probably 10 years ago.
I might be being over cautious, just be careful what you share here, would hate to see you get into needless trouble.
I might be being over cautious, just be careful what you share here, would hate to see you get into needless trouble.
Commissario
It's a fair point, I was told the same and that was well over twenty years ago. I've not discussed the cases I was on with anyone at all.
Caporegime
Because that how these things work. You can be very sure of something without meeting the burden of proof required for a legal conviction. You could be a police officer and the suspect could be laughing at you and saying "you will never prove I did it" and it doesn't matter. You can be sure as hell he did it but if you can't prove it then you have to find him innocent.
You're verdict should reflect the strength of the evidence regardless of whether that supports your opinion of whether they did it or not.
I appreciate your concern but it was a very generic crime by generic oiks.
Luxuries of being a human include being able to have an opinion that isn't reflected in your actions.
Commissario
Because the burden of proof to decide someone is Guilty in the legal sense is very different to whatever your personal opinion of the person is.
A good juror is able to separate their personal feelings from what they're being asked to do for the court, because decisions that can put people in prison should not be based on your feelings but on what the evidence shows to be true.
Opinion is not evidence.
You vote on the evidence.
You can still have a contrary opinion.
its not hard to see why the courts are back logged once youve been on jury service.
Soldato
The issue is only one thing, you state they are guilty, while saying there is not enough evidence to convict them. So how can you say they are guilty.
If i go into court, i listen to everything, then, using everything i have seen and heard, i form my opinion of whether they are guilty or not.
Your verdict, is an opinion, it is not evidence it is based on evidence, but it is always an opinion. It cannot be contrary because it is binary, either guilty or not guilty.
Fez states they are guilty. Not "maybe guilty", or "probably guilty", simply guilty.
He then says there is not enough evidence to convict.
If that is then true, how can you be sure they are guilty?
Why nobody understands this baffles me completely.
Because your black and white explanation is the baffling argument. Everyone else can see how absurd your position is.
Commissario
Your verdict should be based on the evidence presented and your opinion of that*. Your personal opinion can be different.
This is really quite simple.
I can look at someone and comment that they look like an alcoholic, but if it was in court in regards to say drunk driving for that to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" the prosecution would need to present evidence that the person was in fact drunk in the legal terms at the time of the alleged offence, not just that he liked a drink on a regular basis and was found drunk later that day.
You can go to your GP and he might say "well it looks like that lump is nothing to worry about, but I'll send you for a test", that is basically the same thing, the GP's initial opinion is that it's unlikely to be anything serious, but because he's a professional he's going to make sure the evidence backs that up.
It's also why it can be quite hard to get a straight answer from a scientist, as they might say "well I think it's possible, but I don't know" or "I can't rule that out, but I think it's unlikely" if you ask them a question about something where the evidence is unclear.
*To make it even more fun, depending on if it's criminal or civil the burden of proof varies, so "beyond reasonable doubt" is basically there is little/no doubt about what the evidence shows, "on the balance of probabilities" the evidence shows it's a better than 50% chance, or personal opinion which can be "that guy's eyes are too close together" or "he looks like the guy that mugged me 20 years ago".
Soldato
There is a difference between having an opinion of a person, to your opinion if that person is guilty.
They could be scumbags, thats a personal opinion as you describe in this post. It is not however the same thing to say they are guilty.
Logically, if he cannot be found guilty by reasonable doubt, then saying he is guilty is unreasonable. Right?
An equal example would be you saying the guy is drunk, not he looks like a drunk.
If you are in the wrong place and the wrong time, you look guilty, not, you are guilty. There is a big difference.
I will stop responding as i dont know how many ways i can re-phrase this.