than should the Judge and/or jury be charged with murder?
2007-11-18 14:09:48 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Anon E. Mouse:
"If someone is sent to jail, and then later evidence proves them to be innocent, should the judge and jury go to jail for false imprisonment?"
That is a great question. Now I want to know what you guys think about that too.
"Please think before you post" that part just makes me think you are a worthless piece of no good shyt. I hope you get hit by a bus!
2007-11-18 14:17:25 · update #1
Not really.They sentenced him on the evidence they had at the trial
2007-11-18 14:13:43 · answer #1 · answered by RX 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
No. The process generally works and works well. But it is still a process that isn't infallible. Note that the person was found guilty beyond a "reasonable doubt", and that it takes all twelve jurors to vote for a guilty verdict.
To subject a judge and jury to the possibility of a murder charge, you would never get anyone to sit on the bench or on a jury!
2007-11-18 14:15:28 · answer #2 · answered by Dalgor 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No.
This is called Judicial immunity.
We like to believe that our system provides a fair process to determine a guilt or innocence.
Therefore we provide immunity to those involved in the process.
If such immunity did not exist -- it would have a chilling effect to the justice system
Would you want to be on a jury knowing that if you make a mistake you will be punished for it?
Would anyone want to be a judge? a prosecutor? Should we just let all the criminals off the hook?
2007-11-18 16:49:29 · answer #3 · answered by hq3 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No we should have a playboy bunny give the dead guy a ******** to bring him back to life and then he should be given the privilege to torture the judge, jury, prosecutor and crime lab team with Rosie O'Donnell and Ellen Degeneres doing a love scene in front of them on the white house lawn while president Bush announces DNA will not be used for evidence in crimes as long as gays and lesbians have marital rights.
2007-11-18 14:25:31 · answer #4 · answered by Eric W 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no the jury should be condemned only , but I feel the prosecutor and the police who investigated and only showed the jury incriminating evidence and with held exculpatory evidence,or lied which is common for prosecutors and the police these days, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but, they are never punished or anyone else who lies for the prosecution , out of the thousands of cases I have researched not one case was prosecuted when the lie was for the prosecution , is that a fair example of justice???
2007-11-18 14:53:08 · answer #5 · answered by james w 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, they have tried this person on the evidence available at the time. DNA testing is a fairly new procedure, and it does not get used in all cases even today.
2007-11-18 17:15:41 · answer #6 · answered by sbyldy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO, or you wouldn't have any judges or juries which means no justice system. Should we put to death any doctor that makes a mistake and the patient dies?
2007-11-18 14:22:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If someone is sent to jail, and then later evidence proves them to be innocent, should the judge and jury go to jail for false imprisonment?
Please think before you post.
2007-11-18 14:13:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
No as they only acted on the information they were given. Liability lies with the forensic officer who failed to detect the DNA evidence in the first place.
2007-11-18 14:14:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's unlikely anyway.
They aren't going to continue a case for someone who's been executed.
2007-11-18 14:14:23 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋