Darren New wrote:
> """
> Most legal processes work on the theory that every case has exactly two 
> opposed sides and that it is easier to find two biased humans than one 
> unbiased one.  Between the prosecution and the defense, someone has a 
> motive to present any given piece of evidence, so the court will see all 
> the evidence; that is the theory.
> """

But that unfortunately leads to the situation that the prosecution wants 
the suspect to be convicted, whatever it takes. While the defense wants 
to get him/her free, whatever it takes. Neither is interested in the 
truth anymore (nor in the well being of the suspect or the victim), only 
in their personal score of wins and losses. Too many innocent persons 
appear to be on deathrow because their lawyer was weak or did spend more 
time on other (better paid?) cases, leaving the field open for the 
prosecution to increase their score.

> Perhaps it's easier to balance out biases with 12 people than with 1 or 3?
> 
Interesting concept. So one should claim he is innocent, one that he did 
not do it on purpose, one that he did it because his mother hates him, 
one that he is guilty as hell... Might be difficult to find 12 different 
views on a case ;)

You could do 6 different and independent stagings of the same case each 
with a different prosecution, defense, judge (and jury) and then take 
the average. Although in extreme case a person could be half set free, a 
third in jail (with a half of that released after 3 and the other half 
after 6 years) and for on sixth (e.g. his leg?) get a death sentence.

Post a reply to this message