Tangoutinteresting, this is something i know nothing about.
the Jurors def have way way more information than we do.
Do you think like beyond a reasonable doubt as its currently defined good bar? too high or too low?
from the outside, I feel like its too low of a bar and that I would rather more criminals go free than the amount of innocent people who are arrested. (unrelated to this case). but you think that the issue is peoples education about the law and not the burden of proof?
I think it's a good bar. The standard isn't beyond all doubt or 100% certainty. The evidence needs to convince the jury of the defendant's guilt based on reason and common sense. Once the defense introduces doubt - e.g This witness accusing our client has the motive to get up there and lie - jurors still have to decide whether this is reasonable doubt
People's awareness of the law is absolutely an issue. I get the rationale behind the jury system but you gather 12 people with varying levels of understanding of the law, their own biases etc. to make a decision and s*** can get chaotic and unpredictable really fast. I'd much prefer leaving my fate in the hands of a Judge who is well versed in the law. People talk about corruption and racial biases etc but most Judges are afraid of having their decisions overturned on appeal/review - hella embarrassing to have another Judge say "They got the whole thing wrong, their interpretation of the law was incorrect, this accused should not have been found guilty"
