Show me a case where the evidence pointed to innocence, but the jury convicted anyway.
Again, from the page you posted:
Says nothing about juries just being flat wrong.
EDIT: You may want to start reading the content of the links you post, instead of posting it hoping I won’t read it.
Here’s another one. Notice the lack of “jury was wrong” in the “contributing factors” column of table 13:
^ Wait, so a jury has never decided wrong?
Is that what I said?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Is that what I said?[/quote]
I’m asking you. I don’t want to dance around. Do juries choose incorrectly?
I’ll go ahead and answer for you: yes.
If juries choose incorrectly, they are fallible. If they are fallible, there is uncertainty inherent in the decisions they hand out.
But you said there wasn’t.
Hmm.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Show me a case where the evidence pointed to innocence, but the jury convicted anyway.[/quote]
You couldn’t possibly be so stupid as to make an argument against jury trials by saying juries convict innocents without a single case or shred of evidence to back up your claim…
could you?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Show me a case where the evidence pointed to innocence, but the jury convicted anyway.[/quote]
You couldn’t possibly be so stupid as to make an argument against jury trials by saying juries convict innocents without a single case or shred of evidence to back up your claim…
could you?[/quote]
Choosing literally at random: Christopher Ochoa.
You couldn’t possibly be so fucking stupid in the age of OJ Simpson, Lemrick Nelson, and the Central Park Five to stand by the contention that there is no uncertainty in the American justice system.
Just stop.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Is that what I said?[/quote]
I’m asking you. I don’t want to dance around. Do juries choose incorrectly?
I’ll go ahead and answer for you: yes.
If juries choose incorrectly, they are fallible. If they are fallible, there is uncertainty inherent in the decisions they hand out.
But you said there wasn’t.
Hmm.[/quote]
End of story.
The alternative is this: juries are infallible and the innocent never go to prison and the guilty never walk free.
Again, just stop. You said something stupid. Oh well.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Show me a case where the evidence pointed to innocence, but the jury convicted anyway.[/quote]
You couldn’t possibly be so stupid as to make an argument against jury trials by saying juries convict innocents without a single case or shred of evidence to back up your claim…
could you?[/quote]
Choosing literally at random: Christopher Ochoa.
[/quote]
Ochoa confessed under duress. Not jury’s fault.
Next.
Not convicted
Not convicted. Well, not at first anyway.
Confessions under duress. Again, not the jury’s fault.
That’s not what I stated. Go back and read it again.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Is that what I said?[/quote]
I’m asking you. I don’t want to dance around. Do juries choose incorrectly?
I’ll go ahead and answer for you: yes.
If juries choose incorrectly, they are fallible. If they are fallible, there is uncertainty inherent in the decisions they hand out.
But you said there wasn’t.
Hmm.[/quote]
End of story.[/quote]
You act as if you haven’t had an argument with me before. Why do you always try to “end the story” after you’ve exposed your own idiocy? Hell, I’m enjoying watching you try to squirm out of that corner you painted yourself into, instead of admitting you were wrong.
[quote]The alternative is this: juries are infallible and the innocent never go to prison and the guilty never walk free.
Again, just stop. You said something stupid. Oh well.[/quote]
Here again. What you understood was not the same as what I said.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
Did anyone have a chance to watch John Brennan’s confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence today?[/quote]
Been watching this guy for a while. Speaks a little too highly of Islam for my taste. I watched an interview of him a while back where he was talking about the ‘majesty of the hajj’ and said his favorite city in the world is ‘Al Quds’.
Also, for some reason, strikes me as a little on the “sweet” side. NTTAWWT.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Here again. What you understood was not the same as what I said.[/quote]
[quote]
I said: “[Uncertainty] has sent innocent men to prison.” You said that I was wrong–that there is no room for uncertainty in a court of law, whatever the fuck that means [Hint: it means nothing]. You are wrong. Guess what genius? All of these procedural problems you’re trying to tie your argument to–all of the confessions under duress and the rest (what confessions don’t come under duress by the way?)–they all stand as perfect evidence of my statement that uncertainty is inherent in our justice system, and against your ludicrous objection to the same.
So, again, our legal system is flawed and uncertain. Bad evidence is proffered, juries make wrong decisions (New Study Shows How Often Juries Get It Wrong | ScienceDaily): guilty men go free and innocent men are incarcerated. Just ask Mamie Till.
So again: you are wrong. Sorry.
Bennett Barbour: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Bennett_Barbour.php
Evidence against: identified in a line-up.
Evidence for: he didn’t match the victim’s initial description, he had a debilitating disease that made him unlikely to have managed a rape, his alibi was corroborated by three witnesses at trial.
Verdict: guilty.
DNA exonerated him.
The jury chose wrong.
Again, you’re wrong.
And another:
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Entre_Nax_Karage.php
No procedural malpractice on the prosecution’s part. They did their job, the defendants did their (shitty) job, and the jury made the wrong choice.
Again, you’re wrong.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[Uncertainty] has sent innocent men to prison." [/quote]
Uncertainty has not sent anyone to prison. Uncertainty has kept guilty people from going to prison, for sure. False certainty, fabricated by the authorities (to whom you are perfectly ok with handing over the duties of judge, jury and executioner), has sent many to prison and to their deaths.
Seems to me that the authorities are the problem, not the juries (We the People)
Do you understand what my statement meant, now?
You cannot name one factual case where the jury has sent someone to prison or sentenced them to death because they were uncertain whether they were guilty or innocent. Hundreds of millions have been killed by governments in the past hundred years alone.
So again, the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that no PERSON (not citizen, PERSON) shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Bennett Barbour: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Bennett_Barbour.php
Evidence against: identified in a line-up.
Evidence for: he didn’t match the victim’s initial description, he had a debilitating disease that made him unlikely to have managed a rape, his alibi was corroborated by three witnesses at trial.
Verdict: guilty.
DNA exonerated him.
The jury chose wrong.
Again, you’re wrong.[/quote]
False identification by a witness.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
And another:
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Entre_Nax_Karage.php
No procedural malpractice on the prosecution’s part. They did their job, the defendants did their (shitty) job, and the jury made the wrong choice.
Again, you’re wrong.[/quote]
Bench trial = no jury.
Please read. You’re embarrassing yourself.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[Uncertainty] has sent innocent men to prison." [/quote]
Uncertainty has not sent anyone to prison. Uncertainty has kept guilty people from going to prison, for sure. False certainty, fabricated by the authorities (to whom you are perfectly ok with handing over the duties of judge, jury and executioner), has sent many to prison and to their deaths.
Seems to me that the authorities are the problem, not the juries (We the People)
Do you understand what my statement meant, now?
You cannot name one factual case where the jury has sent someone to prison or sentenced them to death because they were uncertain whether they were guilty or innocent. Hundreds of millions have been killed by governments in the past hundred years alone.
So again, the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that no PERSON (not citizen, PERSON) shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.[/quote]
“Uncertainty,” as in the pervasive fallibility of the intuitions, senses, and analytical faculties, i.e. the very thing that causes juror error. If your issue is with a semantic non-difference, you just say so and I explain this to you.
But then again–it doesn’t change the fucking point, which is that you are whining about the possibility that an innocent man might be mistaken for a terrorist as if that’s a danger unique to drone warfare.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
And another:
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Entre_Nax_Karage.php
No procedural malpractice on the prosecution’s part. They did their job, the defendants did their (shitty) job, and the jury made the wrong choice.
Again, you’re wrong.[/quote]
Bench trial = no jury.
Please read. You’re embarrassing yourself.[/quote]
If you think I’m going to read through these old cases to prove something that doesn’t need proving, you’re an idiot. Strike this one from the category of jury error. It still stands as evidence of my point, which is that wrongful accusation is a pervasive danger and not anything like exclusive to the war on terror.