U.S. Legal system needs SERIOUS changes

**Little** · 07-17-2011 07:24 PM

I agree with RC about the distinction between the accused and the convicted. The case described here places me on the fence in a way I can't successfully articulate ... it saddens me that as soon as a person is accused of a heinous crime like this, he seems to lose his rights. Of course it's right that he lose many of his rights afterwards (not all, but some.) But how do we legislate against this? Every system has loopholes. I find it a bit more disturbing that even if your jury is high on various drugs and drunk throughout your case, you don't get a retrial (true story.)
But what this issue makes me wonder is, was this an issue that the family of the victims brought up? Or was it some sick journalist whispering in the family's ear, "Hey, because he's his own lawyer, he gets to watch his own videos over and over!" How are the search for ratings and the desire to sell newspapers (or online ad space) affecting our perception of the legal system? We aren't lawyers here, we're just laymen. Is there something we're missing because of that?

**rcoreyus** · 07-17-2011 11:17 PM

Little has a good point. To some extent the victims were only harmed again because the media told them that the guy was watching his own videos. If they hadn't been told, they could have been satisfied with his rotting in prison.

I wonder if some sort of professional jury would be better. We certainly need a jury that is independent of the justice system, but there are a lot of cases that are too technically complex for random people to understand. As an example, interpreting DNA evidence involves understanding conditional probabilities - without that, it would be very easy to be confused by a clever lawyer on either side.

If our legal system operated quickly, I wouldn't be as worried about people losing their rights before conviction. Unfortunately it is possible to spend years in this "accused by not convicted" limbo. Some of those people spend that time in prison.

The only time I have been selected as a Juror, it was only as an alternate. Still it drove me nuts during the trial that I could not ask questions. There were issues where without an answer I couldn't possibly give a fair judgement.

**WildChild** · 07-17-2011 11:30 PM

My state jurors are not permitted to ask questions. Seems a difficult restriction.

**jns** · 07-18-2011 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by WildChild

My state jurors are not permitted to ask questions. Seems a difficult restriction.

Jurors are not permitted to ask questions of any one other than the judge and that is only permitted under certain circumstances. Once in the jury room while deciding the case they can question the group or each other. I was on a jury that came back as not guilty as the DA did not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. If it was a civil case for preponderance of evidence and not needing everyone to agree, it would have probably came out against the defendant. Grand Jury jurors may be able to ask questions in certain circumstances.