Her job was not to bargain for this man - that is his lawyer’s job. Her job was too make a finding of innocent or guilty and she knowingly convicted a man she thought was innocent. His blood is on her hands.
THIS is why so many innocent people plead guilty to lesser crimes rather than leave their fate in the hands of 12 idiots.
I would say she voted for what she believed to be a lesser evil instead of voting her conscience, But jury decisions are quite different from electoral decisions so I’m not sure how much utility the underlying analogy has
Her conscience would have been the lesser evil. She was playing 27-D chess instead of her fucking job. She’s a moron who sent an innocent man to prison at the best.
Her conscience wouldn’t have been evil at all imo, she wanted to vote for his innocence but was persuaded that the next best thing was all she could do
She was playing 27-D chess instead of her fucking job. She [was] a moron who sent an innocent man to prison at the best [who clearly feels bad about it now and is doing everything she can to fix it, but that probably won’t have any effect now and doesn’t excuse her prior mistake of not exercising her power when she had it, and there is an important lesson there we should be applying in our own lives today]
It was like 1-D chess, not 27: “if he has a mistrial, the next jury will convict him.”
That’s it, that was her thinking.
She fucked up real bad. 🤷♂️ Good on her for trying to correct it, but the right thing to do was vote not guilty because you didn’t think he was proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Oh and by the way, make sure everyone is aware of jury nullification: until the wealthy follow the rule of law, you should feel free to vote not guilty even if you think they’re guilty.
I know I will be thinking about that the next time I’m on a jury.
That’s my point. He would likely be free if she voted her conscience. Even the best outcome from her idiocy was him spending life in prison. She should feel bad either way.
As I said - this is exactly why innocent people will choose a lighter sentence and plead guilty. You never know what some idiot in the jury is going to do.
Her job was not to bargain for this man - that is his lawyer’s job. Her job was too make a finding of innocent or guilty and she knowingly convicted a man she thought was innocent. His blood is on her hands.
THIS is why so many innocent people plead guilty to lesser crimes rather than leave their fate in the hands of 12 idiots.
She wanted to send a message by voting third party and now has regrets.
I would say she voted for what she believed to be a lesser evil instead of voting her conscience, But jury decisions are quite different from electoral decisions so I’m not sure how much utility the underlying analogy has
Her conscience would have been the lesser evil. She was playing 27-D chess instead of her fucking job. She’s a moron who sent an innocent man to prison at the best.
Her conscience wouldn’t have been evil at all imo, she wanted to vote for his innocence but was persuaded that the next best thing was all she could do
imo
It was like 1-D chess, not 27: “if he has a mistrial, the next jury will convict him.”
That’s it, that was her thinking.
She fucked up real bad. 🤷♂️ Good on her for trying to correct it, but the right thing to do was vote not guilty because you didn’t think he was proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Oh and by the way, make sure everyone is aware of jury nullification: until the wealthy follow the rule of law, you should feel free to vote not guilty even if you think they’re guilty.
I know I will be thinking about that the next time I’m on a jury.
That’s my point. He would likely be free if she voted her conscience. Even the best outcome from her idiocy was him spending life in prison. She should feel bad either way.
As I said - this is exactly why innocent people will choose a lighter sentence and plead guilty. You never know what some idiot in the jury is going to do.
Holy fuck that’s hilarious! 🤣