Ophrization of the legal system

[question everything]

I cannot escape it. Any TV station that reports news has segments of interviewing Scott Peterson's jurors. He did not show remorse, they say. He did not express any emotions, they say.

Aren't they supposed to rule on the facts and facts alone? Thus, if he were crying, saying, say that as his wife was getting big he was lusting after a thin young thing; if he were crying that he missed her so much that he wanted to run away from home; if he were - of course - to proclaimed his rebirth and accepting Jesus as his savior - would his life be spared?

What kind of instructions did the judge provide?

[sui generis]

1. I completely agree

to the jurors - you bunch of dumbasses! I believe he deserves to move on but ANYONE after six months of testimony and grueling confrontation with the facts would get a bit numb.

If somebody isn't crying on cue for you, then you should be directing films, not serving in a jury. Pull your heads outta your asses.

[RobinA]

2. I Always Cringe

when I hear the "He/She must be guilty, he/she didn't seem the least bit upset/didn't show remorse/was sitting stone-faced with no emotion." It's a horrible assumption that everyone reacts to things exactly the same way. As one of the stone-faced crowd, I could just as easily say, "He/She must be guilty, look at the fake weeping going on, I would never do that."

[BiggJawn]

3. Why even have a Jury?

Just throw him in a dungeon, naked, for the night. Then in the morning, inspect the cell for any sign of Vermin. this would be proof of the accused's having had consort with Daemons during the night, thus proving his guilt.

Or tie him hand and foot and throw him in San Fran bay. If he sinks, this is a sign that the water accepts his pure heart and thus his innocence. If he float, then the water rejects him, and he is a WITCH!

Sounds about as scientific and reasoned as how they convicted him anyway..."He did't cry..." Sheesh!