Getting twelve people to agree upon a person's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is a high burden and it was designed to be that way. So, it's odd that it's a few times a week that I find a new story of a person who spent years in prison who was finally exonerated. I'm sure that there are thousands more stories that we don't hear in which people who were found guilty were likely guilty; but, the evidence was lacking to achieve the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt.
Obviously a large contributing factor is that a lot of people in prison never get to the point of a jury trial because they take plea deals. People are often scared into plea deals by a prosecutor threatened them with decades more in prison if they decided to fight the charges instead of taking the deal.
I do think that there's an added problem here and that is, quite honestly, if I'm ever facing criminal charges, I wouldn't want about 98% of you on my jury.
The amazing thing is that I don't think many people get the concept of beyond a reasonable doubt. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if most guilty verdicts are voted for by jurors who just figured they were sure enough or that the defendant is more likely guilty than not. Beyond that, I am absolutely convinced that a great many people are willing to let their political biases get in the way of how they understand the law.
No matter how you put it George Zimmerman was never in the stratosphere of being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, the jury agreed with me; but, there are clearly millions of people out there (potential jurors) who certainly would have voted guilty out of anger, a passionate hatred of guns, or a warped belief that people shouldn't be allowed to use guns to defend themselves. The New York Times even published an article after the Rittenhouse verdict complaining about how the burden is on the prosecution in self-defense cases. The burden is always on the prosecution and always should be; but, the idea that there should be a burden placed on the defense is way too popular.
Some people are so blinded by anger and ideology that they still believe a dozen false allegations made against Kyle Rittenhouse. It doesn't matter that it's the most clear and obvious case of self-defense in history, you've got people like Colbert basically saying that you shouldn't even be allowed to use deadly force if you are cornered by an armed assailant. Again, the jury got it right; but, millions of you potential jurors would have gotten it wrong.
"Well Noose," you may say at this moment, "you did just show two examples wherein you think the system worked." First of all, no, the system didn't work. Rittenhouse never should have been charged. But, how can you not be concerned about the juror on the Chauvin case who has since gone on to say in no uncertain words that he saw serving on the jury as activism and that he really did go in intending to put in a guilty verdict. Even if you think that the jury ultimately got it right that's a glaring glitch in the process. Jurors are supposed to dispassionately determine what is true. Too many people refuse to do that.
How you feel about a defendant or what your instincts tell you shouldn't factor into your decision making on a jury. Politics shouldn't factor into your thinking outside of very few cases. If you're a reasonable person and you reasonably doubt guilt you need to vote not guilty even if you think that the defendant is a complete piece of shit.