How much faith do you have in a conviction/acquital?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

Suppose that someone you know was charged with a crime, and sent to trial.

How much would the way you treated them afterwards depend on whether the jury found them innocent or guilty, and how much would depend on your own assessment of the evidence (assuming that you knew enough of the details)?

Would it make a difference what the crime they were accused of was? Would you mean more prone to treat someone who had been convicted but you thought was probably innocent as though they were innocent, or someone who had been acquitted but you thought was probably guilty as though they were guilty? Would you draw a distinction between personal life (will I remain friends with this person) and public life (will I employ this person)? Would it make a difference if you were certain of their guilt/innocence (you were a witness to the crime, or to an alibi, for example?)


Personally, I worry that this is a question to which there is no good answer. I don't want to live in a society where I can be forced to continue to employ someone I know or have good reason to believe committed a serious crime, I don't want to live in a society where my life can be ruined by someone making false accusations against me even if they can't prove them, and I don't see how it is possible to avoid at least one of those being true.

[el_bryanto]

1. I'm not sure of the context of this - but here's another wrinkle would it matter what they were

accused of?

I mean if a friend was accused of and found acquitted of a) stealing a car or b) possessing child pornography would it make a difference?

Bryant

[ZombieHorde]

2. I like to think we get it right at least 70% of the time.

I am not happy with 70%, but I don't have very much faith in a jury of my peers.

[vadawg]

5. i work in the law and i am ofteni n court, juries scare me

in many ways i prefer the method of justice i grew up with, no jury, no lawyers, no appeals. It seemed to be more balanced when the decisions where final in every regard, there was not so much ease in heavy sentencing and facts were not excluded or hidden. Not sure how you could improve on the US system though...

[imdjh]

7. The problem is that "peer" is a fiction.

As Anne Boleyn complained, the jury isn't truly one of your peers.

[Gman2]

3. I had jackbooted thugs roust me outta bed at midnite.

Four at first, then they called the head cop. They handcuffed me. They threatened me, and said many right wing things, that I argued against. I was eventually let go. I told my mom, I told a girlfriend. Neither can hear it. Just the stigma of being handcuffed was enought to make them not listen. My mom told me NOT to tell my dad. You are guilty, when they say you are guilty. The people in your life believe them, and not you. The pig told me as he left, that my not allowing them in my home immediately, is why they were sure I was guilty. You have NO fourth protections. And barely a first.

[Gman2]

6. Also, just took out a crooked judge and cop a month ago.

They ran a kangaroo court. I got them to admit their crimes on tape in court. Then, the DA reamed their ass. sweet justice. FUCK THE POLICE. No, I am not a criminal. They are constructing schemes to fleece the citizen.

[imdjh]

4. Normally I would be pretty certain in my assessment.

I have an old friend who was charged and then released without prosecution on a pretty nasty murder charge. Do I think it's possible he did it? Of course, anything is possible. I don't think it's likely, though. However, because drug use and trafficking was involved, I'm not as certain as I might otherwise have been. We had stopped staying in touch before this happened (his doing, perhaps drug related as well) but if we were to run into each other again, I don't honestly know how I would feel about him. He's done some pretty rotten things, but never to me, and all in the name of "business". He's always been a bit shady. Come to think of it, he wasn't a particularly good choice of friend.

[notadmblnd]

8. you get what you pay for in the justice system just like anywhere else.

It's not about justice, it's not about punishing the person that did wrong. It's abut losing and winning cases. If you have enough money to pay for lawyers, you'll most likely win your case. If not, you're going to do lots of time.

[Greyhound]

9. Very little, for it is almost entirely dependent on wealth.

This will be an issue similar to health care some time in the future, our "justice system" has devolved to medievalism. We have abandoned the idea of rehabilitation and establishing a society where crimes committed out of necessity are things of the past. Instead, we revel in punishment and vengeance despite all the evidence that it is ineffective and counter-productive.

"better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" - William Blackstone

It took about 600 years to get to this concept of justice over punishment and less than 50 to fall back.

[TexasObserver]

10. Very little. When it comes to criminal matters, money talks.

The prosecution has such a huge, huge advantage in most cases that there is little way any defendant who isn't well funded can win a criminal case. They're run through like cattle at auction, and they may or may not be guilty. Innocent defendants get rail roaded.

Well funded defendants can hire talent for lawyers and experts, and that's all it takes to show how the prosecution really isn't accustomed to fighting defendants who can put up a fight. Guilty go free.

Each case has an outcome that depends on the judge, who can be terrible, the prosecutor, who can be dishonest, the police, who can be dishonest, a witness, who can be cowered or manipulated, and a jury that brings its pro prosecution/pro police attitude to the jury box.

The process works better for civil cases, but criminal cases are a disaster.

[tjwash]

11. You're asking the wrong folks. There's nothing that DUer's love more than a good lynching

Guilty, not guilt, pfffft....Trials are just secondary fluff. All we need here is a sensationalist headline and 2 paragraphs from someone who wants hits on his article to make up our minds about something. Even so-called progressive DUers here love them a good ol' perceived enemy swinging on a tree branch. It doesn't matter one fucking bit if someone has paid their dues to society, and is trying to make good and get on with their lives...we'll hound your ass till the day you die, and anyone who dares to bring up the point that once your time is served you should be legally able to get on with your life, they'll swing on the branch right next to you.

This fucking place has turned into a sick joke.