Molestation jurors: Did we get it wrong?

I am a court interpreter and I see this issue over and over. The US judicial system is a flawed system of rewards and sought verdicts.
Rewards, because a prosecutor is not considered good because he/she finds truth during the case and sends the right person to jail while the not guilty is sent home. The good prosecutor is the one that sentences a defendant to prison. It does not matter if the person is not guilty or if there are any doubts, the job of the prosecutor is not to be honest and to seek justice, but to convict, hence, earn a reputation as a convicter.
So, guilty verdicts are sought after, regardless of guilty or innocence.
Jurors are often pressured to convict, and judges preclude jurors from learning about important facts.
It is not a democracy as so many herald, it is a masquerade

Want to clarify one of my phrases in my comment:
Apparently I said:
" the job of the prosecutor is not to be honest and to seek justice, but to convict, hence, earn a reputation as a convicter ".

What I meant to say is:
" the job of the prosecutor is not to be honest nor to seek justice, but to convict, hence, earn a reputation as a convicter ".

Thanks.

You have to ask yourself. If a man lives long enough to be a grat grandfather and has never been acused of any other such acts. Then why all of a sudden in his later years would he commit such an act? Pediphiles; From all I have read and what I understand is that they are incapable of controlling their impulses for molesting children. So it has happened before or it has never happened and if it has haapened before great grandpas victims are old enough now to have been able to speak out and surely someone would have come forward by now.

Ignorance is a horrible thing. Believing that anyone who molests a child is a pedophile is an ignorant belief. Most child molesters are "situational molesters", not pedophiles.
This is why you will often hear defense attorneys wave phych reports that declare their client is not a pedophile. Conveniently leaving out the part about being a situational molester.

Jaime wrote:

Want to clarify one of my phrases in my comment:
Apparently I said:
" the job of the prosecutor is not to be honest and to seek justice, but to convict, hence, earn a reputation as a convicter ".
What I meant to say is:
" the job of the prosecutor is not to be honest nor to seek justice, but to convict, hence, earn a reputation as a convicter ".
Thanks.

Yet, despite your overwhelming feeling of how horrible our judicial system is, you still continue to make a living off of it! I guess your honor goes only as far as your bank with your paycheck.

I was interested how you never mentioned anything about defense attorneys. I guess you're not upset when a defense attorney defends and obviously guilty person, by making all the upstanding citizens, police officers and other witnesses appear to be the bad guys in a situation where their client is clearly, without a doubt guilty! It seems to me you have an agenda here and tried very hard to only play one side.

I have to appear tomorrow for jury duty. After reading this story, this is one of my fears. Convicting an innocent person. The other fear I have is letting a guilty person go free based on what evidence is presented.
I have no faith in out judicial system. Criminals having more rights than victims. Victims lying to garner a conviction. I believe jury outcomes are based on which attorney is the better actor, not necessarily the evidence.

This is why we need professional law educated folks as jurors. We the people who never have practiced one chapter of Law take people away from society and their family because they are persuaded by others. This is wrong!!!! I am so glad that woman came back to speak up

Jaime wrote:

I am a court interpreter and I see this issue over and over. The US judicial system is a flawed system of rewards and sought verdicts.
Rewards, because a prosecutor is not considered good because he/she finds truth during the case and sends the right person to jail while the not guilty is sent home. The good prosecutor is the one that sentences a defendant to prison. It does not matter if the person is not guilty or if there are any doubts, the job of the prosecutor is not to be honest and to seek justice, but to convict, hence, earn a reputation as a convicter.
So, guilty verdicts are sought after, regardless of guilty or innocence.
Jurors are often pressured to convict, and judges preclude jurors from learning about important facts.
It is not a democracy as so many herald, it is a masquerade

Jaime I agree with you to a point, but haven't you seen your share of defense attorney tricks in the courtroom as well? Dirtying the victim or a witness when the atty knows it's BS, asking for definitive answers to broad questions, rapid-fire multiple questions trying to make the witness appear confused, etc .....

..........

Sebastian Stark: "Hey, your job is to win. Justice is God's problem."

"They find it hard to pass judgment, then live with the judgment they've passed," she said.
Doesnt it figure the 3 people are WOMEN??? When this happens, 95% it's with WOMEN jurors. Some are too emotional when it comes time for making tough decisions or living with the tough decision they made. I hate to hear this crap, whining, bleeding hearts for the one found GUILTY, but nothing for the VICTIMS. Lie detector tests are not admissible for a reason, they cant be trusted, plain and simple. Rest easy WOMEN, you made the right decision and took a molester off the streets. He's just lucky it wasnt my little girl he touched or he would be a dead right now, not sitting in a nice warm jail cell. Thanks for finding this molester guilty!!!

cartoon...i guy is at a vending machine labeled "JUSTICE", he is inserting money. Another guy walks up and asks, "how much does it cost?". The guy inserting the money says, "I have no idea, we just keep inserting money and hope for the best".

The jurors did the best they could, at the time. Jurors don't get do-overs, sorry. And of course there was pressure to make a decision, thats why we have the system we do, otherwise a decision would never get made. I was on a jury, we convicted 2 guys of premed. murder, was tough to do, but we did what we felt was right at the time. After, a few jurors had second thoughts when they found out guys would get life(19 &21 y.o.). And yes as written above, they were women, but also a man had second thoughts and actually wrote the judge that he would like to change his vote to 2nd degree murder, judge said the time to object has passed. no new trial, guys are serving time they deserve.

You can only hope they didn't screw it up. No one wants to go to jail for crimes they didn't commit.

you girls screwed up

There is no justice in this country, first off. When a person goes to court for a hearing, the judge is on the states side (so it is not a fair trial and he is not impartial). whether we like it or not. If you asked a judge if you can get a fair trial he has to answer yes, but he is lying. All jurors if they were to go with their gut reaction, it usually is right. Young kids do lie, parents don't pay enough attention to their children alot of them are screaming for attention. Parents can't be bothered. If man was to put one finger on a woman or child that is classified as sexual abuse. And woman will use that. I feel sorry for some men.

There is a reason I have avoided jury "duty" (sorry, not my "duty" ...okay if one wishes to participate). Lucky to have been self-employed and gotten hardship for a couple decades. That no longer valid. Do have a vacation home in another county .... never a jury notice to the mailing there, so tell folk when I receive one here that I live there (utilties bills as "proof").

But if I had to go, would use the line if interviewed for a jury, "Obviously the police arrested them, hence they are guilty. This is just the punishment phase."

My father was excited to have been called for jury duty just a couple years before he retired (he would have gone for decades before if tey had only called him). By-the-way, I am not the only one who feels this way towards juy summons - as there are those who really enjoy such.

Poster Concerned is right on. People like Mr Smithster don't belong on jury. Mr Smithster is a menace to our society, like poster Tusitala. It is people like Tusitala who should stay far away from any courthouse. Smithster and Tusitala are at least partially retarded and are easily persuaded by prosecutors whose jobs are to convict at any cost. Juries have become an embarrassment because of incompetent Smithsters and Tusitalas.

this is most unfortunate. if it happened and if it didn't happen.

Fricken morons. Didn't they have the guts or nerve just to vote NOT guilty until the cows came home if there was not enough evidence ???!!! There needs to be an intelligence test before going on jury duty. These idiots would be a jury of peers only if the defendant had an IQ of 2.

djones wrote:

After reading this story, this is one of my fears. Convicting an innocent person. The other fear I have is letting a guilty person go free based on what evidence is presented.
I believe jury outcomes are based on which attorney is the better actor, not necessarily the evidence.

I'm sure you'll do fine. This isn't a popularity contest or a vote for an elected office, and it's not about acting. The prosecutor has to prove his case. Yes, it does happen that sometimes the guilty are not convicted because the evidence wasn't sufficient (and yes, for other reasons also; I know everyone has a story about a [insert minority here] juror who refused to convict [said minority] defendant, I don't need to be spammed with those).
But as a juror, you're the one in charge. You have the authority. And I know I'm about to get flamed for saying this, but when in doubt, it's ok to play the "reasonable doubt" card. That's what it's there for.

No Name Today wrote:

There is a reason I have avoided jury "duty" (sorry, not my "duty" ...okay if one wishes to participate). Lucky to have been self-employed and gotten hardship for a couple decades. That no longer valid. Do have a vacation home in another county .... never a jury notice to the mailing there, so tell folk when I receive one here that I live there (utilties bills as "proof").

I'm not sure why you put quote marks around the word "duty". It IS a duty, and a responsibility.
Crime happens. The good, honest people in the community are disgusted by it, so we pay a police department to enforce and to arrest those who break the law. And then people like you refuse to participate to see that the law is applied fairly and that justice is done. This IS a duty in the most real sense, and jury duty is a small price to pay. If you don't like the way things are, then maybe you should try being a participant.

No Name Today wrote:

But if I had to go, would use the line if interviewed for a jury, "Obviously the police arrested them, hence they are guilty. This is just the punishment phase."

Not so long ago, a common observation was: "Court cases are decided be people so stupid they can't even figure out how to get out of jury duty." In a way I feel bad for people like you.

No Name Today wrote:

My father was excited to have been called for jury duty just a couple years before he retired (he would have gone for decades before if tey had only called him). By-the-way, I am not the only one who feels this way towards juy summons - as there are those who really enjoy such.

It sounds like your father understood what civil duty really meant, and knew the value of being a participant rather than an observer who shirks responsibility. It's too bad he wasn't able to pass those qualities on to his children.

i feel that the jurors didnt follow directions, that the mere statement that they wanted to spare the girls from testifying in a second trial should have no bearing.... it was his (joe) trial not theirs. by doing this you take away his constitutional right to face his accusers no matter how many trials. right off they (the jurors) presumed that there would be a second trial. if they didnt believe the one girl and werent sure about the other, rule of law would be to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. as far as the lie detector, the police use this as a tool to eleminate suspects everyday. it is not up to the defence to prove a case but the prosicution to present facts beyond a reasonable doubt. in this case it sounds like there was plenty of doubt in the jury room and they gave in to pressure not the facts.