They should apply the Oral Argument podcast’s Christian Turner’s rule of thumb for convicting people: the jury and prosecutors should be willing to submit to the same punishment if the convict is found to be not guilty later.
Discussions here, and here.
I didn’t listen to the hour-long episode, but the first link only refers to people perjuring themselves, lying to get a conviction. I can totally get behind throwing them in the slammer, but you’re suggesting the jury gets imprisoned as well when they are lied to?
I watched the first two episodes. Not sure I can get through the rest as it makes me too angry.
My God! Somebody typed something irresponsible on the internet?
Well, it’s not my suggestion, it’s Georgia U law professor Christian Turner’s. He wants the juries to fully understand what “beyond a reasonable doubt” means.
That’s the tough part right? Take your average Joe and Jane off the street, throw them in to an environment they have zero experience in, and they are bombarded by very talented and experienced truth benders and story tellers, all working within a system that promotes convictions instead of the truth. I wonder if adding an additional layer of fear on the jury is going to give them more understanding of what is happening, or would it just make it more difficult for convictions?
Meanwhile the abusers higher up the legal food chain keep on abusin’.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
