What do you mean by "free to disregard" exactly? You mean like no appeals process should be in place? I mean judges are pretty much free to ignore/interpret the law as they see fit aren't they? Doesn't mean that their decisions will stand under judicial review. Anybody ever complain that SCOTUS decisions ignored/misinterpreted laws?

The Constitutional right to a trial by jury guarantees jury nullification IMO. If a jury can't nullify the law in question, then it's not a trial by jury at all, and just a trial with some jury involvement. The entire point of a trial by jury is to ensure that the law isn't blindly enforced in situations where it is inappropriate and to provide the final check on abuse of government power, and jury nullification is absolutely essential to this process.

ROFL. That's a good one!

+10000000

You're my hero of the day.

Why? That kind of race baiting is exactly the same as when people make crap NAZI analogies. It should be ignored whenever possible and people who do it often should preferrably be banned. OMG, NAZIS BANNED GUNS, YOU'RE A NAZI FOR BANNING GUNS!

The real answer to your question? Why is the jury all white? That's not a jury of their peers, so their Constitutional guarantee has been violated.

The entire purpose of a trial by jury is as a check on goverment power. The ENTIRE PURPOSE. That is not the judge's entire purpose.

Says you.

7 million people even at the low rate (.5%) is about 35k people.

I'm sure it would be much different if you, or someone you knew were under the gun.

Bolded: Actually, it's showing the flaws of the system and how it hasn't been working. It also shows where some areas resist the change and refuse reforms even in light of new evidence showing better ways of doing things. However, some places have instituted reforms that help safeguard certain areas of the process(Wa State isn't one of them yet, surprisingly). They still have quite a ways to go.

It's been shown that there is not significant CSI effect:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...47235209000889

Among other studies.

As far as CSI and forensics, THAT is an area that should be scrutinized heavily since none of it (except DNA) has been tested to scientific probabilities.:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1319965

The Faigman paper was quite alarming when I first read it. Given all the technicians(not scientifically trained, therefore, not actually scientists) they should be able to legitimize many techniques(with the help of an actual scientist). However, many of them claim scientific reliability simply because of the precedent that courts have allowed it prior. Hence many forensics have been tested for reliability as much as the forensics used during the witch trials. Literally.

b

I need a clarification on what you're saying here.

An uneducated person would more likely convict than an educated person.

b

Cops and prosecutors have been shown to be susceptible to confirmation bias. Not that they lie, per se, but they tend to weigh certain facts evidence more in favor of their initial bias. One result is not making potentially exculpatory evidence available to the defense. Not that their always consciously hiding it, they just don't give it the weight it deserves.

b

As long as you were a rich White landowner.

b

You realise you're talking about people like William Wilberforce?

What was 1776 referring to?

Wilberforce was about 17 at the time and just entering college. He wasn't close to being in charge of anything at that time.

b

Bernie, I'm done arguing. It's obvious you think the system is flawed despite a huge success rate at "just" convictions. You think 35K is a huge number....put that against 300,000,000 people plus, your chance at being wrongfully convicted stands rather low. I would imagine it is even lower if you avoid bad situations and bad people. I still dispute your numbers as you have shown all those exoneration that's occurred over several years and they are never presented in context with how many convictions have occurred over those same several years.

Show me exoneration's over a ten year period along side convictions then you might have a point if the number is any where near .5% (even if they are that high, I'd take).......I think your looking something along the lines as .01% if not lower. But overall compared to the 35% acquittal rate along with the entire US population, the chances of being wrongfully convicted are astronomical.

I'll take the small chance at being wrongfully convicted as long as the system gets the real criminals off the street with success they've had so far.

Pitt @ co. Wilberforce was one of them. 17 wasn't as young then as it sounds now. pitt was PM at 24.

They weren't perfect by any means and times were of course very different.

Its getting very off-topic but this seemed good http://www.johnjayinstitute.org/reso...n-wilberforce/

I assume from your post that you dont really know much of them.

What are you basing this success rate on, faith? You think the system is fine and shouldn't be changed at all then? Nothing to see here, just move along. Wow.

It's obvious you haven't studied the inner working of the justice system too deeply, instead relying on faith that it's working.

Sorry, but I don't believe in a faith based justice system.

Underlined: This is a ridiculous comparison for many reasons. Though, not as bad as your false confession example.

Taking capital cases as an example, they are not privy to test all the cases, do you realize that? There are convicted rapists, convicted prior to DNA, who are not allowed to use DNA to try and exonerate them. That's not even getting to the lesser crimes that aren't allowed to be checked. Think of that context.

What they are finding is how certain aspects of the system influence outcomes due to subjectivity, regardless of evidence. I think you would agree that minimizing that would greatly help the reliability in rightful convictions. But it should make you wonder when parts of the criminal justice system refuse to change in light of new, empirical findings.

and you're basing this on....? Faith?


Actually, it's not astronomical. You're conveniently ignoring plea bargaining and how many innocents take a plea.

But taking you're number, if you're innocent and make it to trial, you'll likely be convicted 65% of the time. Somehow, that's acceptable to you? Poner that.

Until you or someone you know is in position to be wrongfully convicted. Some have to wait that long, I guess. Until then, it's the similar mentality of kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out. Cool.

But then I'll just remember this is someone who thinks it's tough to get a coerced confession(hey, kids are tough for parents to crack) and forensics(non-DNA) is reliable evidence(implied by your CSI reference). Why he thinks this along with thinking the system is fine, as is?

Because he 'believes' it.

Good luck with that.

Good idea.

b

Well, a landowner anyway. You didn't have to be rich. You could also be a non-white landowner, that was just very rare.

And believing in freedom for rich White landowners is better than not believing in freedom for anyone.

Nope. People generally don't hear about the fight against slavery until the 1800s. Very interesting read.

I will say, when people here 1776, these aren't the 1st people that come to mind. Especially regarding the US criminal justice system(I didn't see anything in the link relating to the CJS and its processes, it was primarily about slavery.)

b

Especially if you're White. I think some minorities might disagree.

b

It as all a derail by ACShark425 "Ahhh A Brit I see, yea well you guys didn't get it in 1776, I don't think YOU get it any better now."

who in an impressive bout of patriotic idiocy managed to hit on one of the few times when those in and arround real power did get it, sadly it wasn't enough to carry the day.

Your constitution isn't entirely the work of the French, a great deal of the better stuff comes from the British (including jury nullification)

No and if you stopped trying to argue you'd understand. Anything can be improved. I've said as much. I'm pointing out how ridiculous your argument that wrongful convictions is such a huge problem or the system is such shambles, when in reality an american citizen probably has way less than a .5 percent chance at a wrongful conviction. There are about a million felony convictions a year. US Population of about 300,000,000. About .33% of the US population will be convicted of a felony a year, no matter if they are guilty or not. We know on average 95% plead guilty. Say 50,000 people go to trail and are convicted. Even if every single one convicted of a felony are innocent whether they plead guilty or not, the chance of a US citizen being wrongfully convicted is .3%. I'm willing to bet that number is way smaller than .3% as not everyone is innocent.

Crap to do with faith, has to do with basic numbers.



My odds of a felony conviction if I do not commit a crime is at most .33% every year. That is a third of a percent.

.33% its not faith. Even if you cut the population down to 100,000,000 your chance at being wrongfully convicted is at most 1%. That is if the Justice system has 0% accuracy. Meaning all 1,000,000 are innocent.

You can not dispute the numbers. A US citizen faces at most a 1% (and that's generous) chance of conviction if the system is 0% accurate. Meaning all 1,000,000 are innocent.



You can put it into what ever context you want. The odds of a wrongful conviction is way less than 1%. Again lets say 100,000,000 people are eligible to be convicted and 1 million are.....if they are all innocent, you still have a 1% chance at a wrongful conviction. Its way less.



Numbers you do not want to accept. Nothing to do with faith. I'm sick of liberals distorting the problem.




Its rather astronomical, you just do not want to accept. Again if the system is 0% accurate and you gauge the eligible population to be convicted of a felony at 100,000,000 (which it is considerably more) We know on average annually there are 1,000,000 convictions. You stand no worse than 1 out of 100 years of being wrongfully convicted.


I think you are ignorant. The numbers show that felony conviction of a US citizen is rare enough, add in a the chance of a wrongful conviction, it is even less.

**** to do with faith.




Odds are significant I'll never know or meet one.

Why? They're not free either way. They want to drag down people who are free just because they aren't? Increase the freedom in the world, don't lessen it out of spite. That's just horrible.

Ah. Sorry I missed the Brit reference.

Nice transition back to the topic.

b

I've seen people go out of their way to distort numbers to prove their point but wow, you take the cake.

Bolded: And you're basing this number on what? Not people that actually study these things, so where are you pulling this out of? Just because that's what you 'think?'

And this has been shown otherwise. Where are you getting this number? You do realize we're talking about people who've been convicted, right? We're not talking about the odds of someone just picking you randomly off the street and convicting you. Quite a goalpost shift you're doing.

Why would I accept numbers based on non-scholar opinion?

Liberals distorting...LOL NOW is see what the deal is.


Again, we're talking about those that are convicted, but are innocent. You know, the process itself after looking at the end results?

The numbers are showing the number of wrongful convictions based on those convicted that they're able to study, are significantly high, and increasing.

Call me what you want(seems you like doing that to posters that don't agree with you, even in light of supported arguments), you've shown nothing to refute anything I've shown other than blathering on and goalpost shifting. You've shown(to anyone with any real knowledge of the subject matter) you know very little about the process and inner workings of the system. Very little. But you just keep repeating the same stuff, based on, well, your adamant thoughts and nothing else. Because you said so. That's rock solid, dude.

I should've followed some of the other posters suggestions and left you alone in your conjecture. Apparently, for you, it's more about being right, and trying to come off as an authority at any cost, than actually learning something, even when painfully wrong. How desperate do you really need the validation?

What those posters learned in 1 thread it took me 3. I'm done wasting my time with you.

Good luck on your quest for validation.

b

Who's saying this?

Are there oppressed people trying to take away freedoms? Where is that happening?

I will say some oppressed wouldn't mind the oppressors being in their shoes for a while to understand what it's like, since not everyone is fighting the good fight, but exploiting it to the hilt.

b

Well it didn't take very long for this thread to become unreadable.