Ethical question

[leinad]

Keep in mind that under the law, all 12 jurors must be convinced of a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for a guilty verdict to be rendered, and any juror who has reasonable doubt is required to vote "not guilty".  I've noticed that media people seem to forget about reasonable doubt and think that a not-guilty verdict means that the jury believed the defendant was innocent.

Suppose you're a juror in a criminal trial in which the defendant is accused of a heinous crime, which, if he's really guilty, makes him a clear threat to society, and thus a conviction would carry at minimum a lengthy prison sentence.  After carefully weighing the evidence, you conclude that he most likely is guilty as charged, but that the threshold of reasonable doubt hasn't quite been crossed.   Maybe because of inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, or just a lack of truly compelling evidence.  Keep in mind that if he did indeed commit the crime, it's quite possible that he'll do it again, or worse, if given the chance.  Also remember that the law requires you to vote to acquit if you have reasonable doubt, which, in this hypothetical case, you do.

Do you vote guilty or not guilty?

[Vlad!]

For me to be in this position, I have to have made a couple decisions or observations:
-I think that the character of the defendant is such that he will commit said crime again.
-I think that it's likely, though not certain, that he committed this crime. Since it is specified as a heinous crime, I obviously feel that he was both willing to commit this crime and capable of committing it.

I suppose it would really depend on the specifics, but that's the pansy way out. I guess I'll say that, for at least most of the cases in which this circumstance occured, I would vote guilty. I would have to trust the judge to take the lack of definite evidence or the holes in the case into account when he or she was sentencing this man, though, because I wouldn't want to send someone to his death on such shaky grounds.  

[leinad]

I would have to trust the judge to take the lack of definite evidence or the holes in the case into account when he or she was sentencing this man, though, because I wouldn't want to send someone to his death on such shaky grounds.

I think that may be the reason that death sentences must now be recommended by a jury in order to be implemented.  I think there was a Supreme Court ruling on that a few years ago.


It bothers me to hear commentators saying things like "The jury believed that?  How stupid can you get?"  in regards to the defendant's story.  A not guilty verdict doesn't mean that the jury actually believed the defendant was innocent.  

If I were in this situation, I would certainly re-examine my doubts to see if they were truly reasonable, and pray a bit.  But in the end, if I still felt I had a reasonable doubt, I think I would bite the bullet and vote not guilty (and make my case to the other jurors if they disagreed), and hope that the defendant had learned a lesson if he did anything wrong.  But if it were clear that this was a violent, dangerous person whether or not he commited this specific crime, it would be a bit tougher.

[oneafroboy]

There are a lot of subconcious things that go on in our heads that have input in whether we label people dangerous or threatening or not.

Unfortunately, the darkness of one's skin can influnce. And for whatever reason (and there are many) people with darker skin often can be perceived as more threatening. Even if it's only subconscious (admittedly, sometimes it is not).

[bethany]

This reminds me a lot of "12 Angry Men," a movie I would highly recommend watching. It has the guy who does Piglet's voice in it!

[Vlad!]

Or you could actually read the play

But yes, it is quite good, and it does sort of relate to this discussion.

[leinad]

This reminds me a lot of "12 Angry Men," a movie I would highly recommend watching. It has the guy who does Piglet's voice in it!

I'd like to see that movie, if I can find out in advance next time it's on (or I guess I could rent it.)  

I just saw the made-for-tv movie about Scott Peterson (played by Dean Cain), accused of killing his pregnant wife Laci and their unborn son.  In real life he's about to go on trial.  It seems like he probably did it, based on his conduct (affair, selling wife's car right after she went missing, etc.) and seemingly unlikely stories he's told, but I haven't heard of anything really convincing.  Of course, we don't know all the evidence which will be presented in court.  

[bethany]

Or you could actually read the play
 

you could, but I would say you should watch the movie instead, because they do a good job of dramatizing the play in a movie format, and when it comes down to it, plays are meant to be seen, not read. their scripts are not literature, they're blueprints for a visual production.  

[Vlad!]

Spoken like a true film studies major

I read the play, and I enjoyed it. Feel free to see the movie instead , if you have the time.

And let me try to bring this back on track with another question:

Let's say the RIAA brought a criminal suit (i.e. with a jury) against music pirates. You were serving jury duty, and this case came up. You yourself download music online, and the reasons the defendant gives are similar to your own rationalizations. However, the arguments of the prosecution seem to be legally sound. It's obvious that the defendant is guilty as charged, but you are unconvinced that what he or she did is actually a crime. Do you:
-Vote not guilty?
-Vote guilty, and continue downloading music yourself?
-Vote guilty, and stop downloading music?

[leinad]

This website has a good idea.  The legal system could implement two different guilty verdicts, one "beyond a reasonable amount of doubt" or "almost certainly guilty", which he suggests could be defined as 95% certainty, and the other "beyond any reasonable doubt", which would be virtual 100% certainty.  And only those convicted by the latter standard would be eligible for the death penalty, which could then be carried out swiftly with only minimal appeals.  I'm not sure how this would work out in practice, but it's worth looking into.  

It's interesting that the current legal standard for a criminal conviction, "beyond a reasonable doubt", apparently means "beyond any reasonable doubt", not "beyond a reasonable amount of doubt" as is commonly perceived (although I'm not really sure on that, that's just what the article claims.)