DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

Considering the vast majority of cases are resolved without a jury, I don't see what the issue is here.

A far more common problem than juror intimidation is the prospect that roughly half of all jurors think it is up to a defendant to prove their innocence (when in fact all that needs to happen is the prosecution fails to make a case for their guilt, which is an entirely different burden). I'd be more worried that we're putting away hundreds if not thousands of innocent people a year than a few mob bosses getting away with something.

Besides, the bigger problem is still over criminalisation and vague criminal statutes leading to gratuitous arrests and plea bargains over dubious charges. If not dubious laws in the first place.

I don't want to be anonymous. How else am I gonna get bribed to vote a certain way? Justice is blind but I'm seeing dollar signs $$

You are what we used to call a "Not Too".

Never heard of it. Care to explain?

I have plenty of an idea. I'm not oblivious to the idea that people can do terrible things to each other. Why do you think I oppose torture for use in interrogations?

But you're fooling yourself if you never arrested somebody who was later convicted wrongly of a crime that they did not commit. The percentage is pretty high when you merely consider DNA testing overturning capital crimes or serious life-sentences.

And it's not uncommon for witness testimony to be inaccurate or for police to skew it in order to try to achieve convictions (ie, "is this the guy?", and keep trying to convince someone that they saw who they arrested rather than whoever they actually saw), as a further problem. This prosecutorial problem was responsible for all manner of wrongful convictions relating to paedophilia not that long ago, pretty famous psychology study came out of it.

I see these as far more common issues, to say nothing of the intrusive social use of useless laws like vice policing which takes away vital and limited policing resources to ensure proper convictions of criminal behavior, to the criminal justice problem than the manner in which people can manipulate juries. There are lots of perfectly legal ways to "get out of something" without going to jury tampering or intimidation.

Are there unscrupulous people and defence attorneys, yes, yes, fine, I admit that many people are nefarious. But despite this flaw, the percentage of people who are actually guilty of a significant crime like rape or theft or murder is very small, much less the percentage of such people whose guilt is established by a jury trial rather than plea agreements. One would think that if it was a pervasive social problem, there would be an outcry for jury protection that might match with that of witness protection.

It's a lot easier to knock, intimidate or buy off a witness than the jury pool if you're working the angle that these are serious people who obviously committed serious crimes.

"Not too bright, not too intelligent, not too swift, etc."

Why? You are trying to be a comedian and just ain't making it.

This was and is a serious question. Leave your amateurish comedic non-talents at home . . .

I do not doubt for a new york second that you have an extensive education and have read many a "study" on quite a few subjects. The only problem I have with that is that you need to put your feet on the ground and see for yourself what it is that law enforcement is actually all about.

Growing up I used to play "cops & robbers" with other kids in our neighborhood and I grew up with a definite view of what law enforcement does, however once I became a police officer – first in the military and later as a civilian – my perception was changed drastically.

I have given many a ride-along in my career to would-be lawyers and criminal justice students, all who came to me with their minds set as to what we cops were (not all good), and after just one shift (many never lasted a full shift) they left with a much clearer picture and perception of law enforcement. Some even changed their majors, and some became police officers themselves.

Again, I urge you to take that ride-along challenge and follow at least one case to its conclusion. You never know . . . you just might learn something important and valuable.

I have seen what law enforcement is all about.

From the other perspective where police are quick to assume guilt. It's not that hard to do, given that we have all too many laws that they have to enforce and they are presumably as jaded as you are.

In my opinion it is not enough to simply and blithely assume that police are not attempting to do a difficult job and then either blame them for every bad thing that happens or to give them extensive leeway and authority (as you seem to suggest at many turns with your authoritarian mindset). We are their bosses as the citizens. They work for us. We should ensure they are trained and doing their jobs, and that's it, no additional respect is earned by putting on the uniform, but rather through doing the job well, and no additional blame is earned either, but rather through doing the job poorly. Police should insist that those who do their jobs poorly or otherwise abuse their position of trust and authority to enforce the law are disciplined, properly trained or dismissed. They don't, and this is a problem larger than jury duty issues. We also ask them to do way too many things and enforce way too many laws, which gives bad cops still more leeway to be a problem. Fewer jurisdictional points of order would be better for everyone, especially the cops.

It's also ridiculous statement to believe that you've never arrested an innocent person.

You can believe it all you want, but I'm telling you that you are wrong in that belief. 100% positive that it's a mythology that you think you know who is guilty and who is innocent. What you do is assume you do and then work to prove it because its a quicker way to solve cases. What you should be doing is assume you do and then work to disprove it. If you can't then you've got a case. If you can't see how someone could be innocent, either you're not a very good cop or they're actually guilty of something.

So far as I can tell, it is not a serious question. Because by far the most common source of actual jury intimidation is from other jurors. What you'd need for "intimidation" is not simply a threatening looking accused. What you need is coercive and credible threatening happening to get people to actually switch a verdict ruling. And the most credible threats come from… other people who are closely in a room with you for a long period of time.

Um I'm completely capable of defending myself SunTzuSays, but thanks for the effort. Really though sometimes I have something to add to a question and make serious contributions (see "Should the government make immunizations mandatory?" for recent example). Other times I really have nothing to contribute and my vapid witticisms serve as little more than a distraction. Feel free to ignore them, but I'm far too much of a narcissist to stop stroking my own ego.

I wasn't defending you. I was responding to the idea that this was somehow an important topic.

That’s the pfrecet insight in a thread like this.