and you were 90% sure the man on trial was killer, and if he was indeed the killer he would likely kill again if he went free. Would you vote that he is guilty even if there was some doubt.
2007-05-21 10:18:02 · 18 answers · asked by nascarfan7677 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
If you truly want the judicial system to work, you have to follow the rules. Its up to the police and the prosecutor to make the case - if their case is weak, or if there is reasonable doubt, the jurors are still compelled to follow the judge's instructions. The whole idea of a jury trial is for people to hear factual evidence and make a decision based on the facts, not on instincts, hunches, or prejudice.
2007-05-21 10:23:23 · answer #1 · answered by nyninchdick 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think I could vote him guilty - if there is even the slightest of doubt and the defendant's life is on the line it isn't fair to condemn him to death or life in prison. Imagine if you were in the same situation, possibly framed, and almost all the evidence pointed to your guilt, but there was a shred of doubt... wouldn't you want the jury to follow the letter of the law and find you not guilty based on that small bit of doubt?
2007-05-21 10:23:21 · answer #2 · answered by airlar73 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Doubt is natural. Even with incontrovertible proof/evidence. You have to override that and look at the evidence. It isn't solely contingent upon you. That's why there's eleven others to arrive at a decision. With supporting evidence/forensics yes I would vote guilty. Yes he would kill again. And again. Some people are actually very really animals. ( Sorry if the extreme observation is unseemly. )
2007-05-21 10:22:43 · answer #3 · answered by vanamont7 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well isn't that the rule? Innocent until proven guilty without a reasonable doubt...you just have to use your best judgement and hope that it's the right decision. I'm sure many, many other jurors have been in the same situation.
2007-05-21 10:22:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are supposed to make that judgment based on the evidence presented in court during the trial. Any rumors you heard outside or personal opinions about the man on trial are not supposed to count. If you can't make that distinction you are not supposed to be on the jury.
2007-05-21 10:22:53 · answer #5 · answered by Rich Z 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well the jury instruction is beyond a reasonable doubt so it would depend on if that 10% was reasonable or not.
2007-05-21 10:21:28 · answer #6 · answered by Lori B 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes
2007-05-21 10:26:09 · answer #7 · answered by sanchito182 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if i was 90% sure i would say yes i would vote guilty. but most jury's have the majority rules policy.
2007-05-21 10:21:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would not contribute my verdict until I was at least 99% sure.
More jury seclusion. Another night at the hotel. More arguing. More pizza.
2007-05-21 10:22:42 · answer #9 · answered by scruffycat 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
innocent UNTIL proven guilty...a resonable doubt is a reasonable doubt
2007-05-21 10:22:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋