Re: My Take
What a vague retort. You think it is ok for some jury members to believe it is OK to convict a person who they believe has a 20% chance of innocence while other members think it is OK to acquit someone based on a 1% chance? And its OK for those people to be randomly placed in jury boxes?
If that was true why the necessity of using the words "reasonable doubt" and, I might add, defining that term moderately precisely. Why not just say "convict if you think you have enough evidence to". The answer of course is that the government doe NOT want jury members to be saying to themselves "as long as he is slightly favored to be guilty lets be safe and put him away" or " I could never live with myself if I thought there was more than a miniscule chance I helped convict an innocent man". You are just flat wrong and I bet even Pair The Board agrees with me on this specific issue.
|