CDZ Is There a Solution to The Failed Corrupt US Justice System?

[KokomoJojo]

I say no.
I do not see a fix when jury's are terrified and in fear of their lives to vote 'not guilty' against government generated indictments where simply being accused is a guilty verdict.

The Emotional Manipulations of Making a Murderer

Weeks after finishing it, I’ve found myself enraged by this series for reasons I didn’t anticipate.

So is it fair for Making a Murderer to characterize both the people of Manitowoc County and the jury that convicted Avery as members of a mindless lynch mob if they were looking at a different, murkier set of facts?

Had Demos and Ricciardi offered a more layered portrait of Steven Avery, it would not have rendered the suffering of Halbach’s and Avery’s families, especially that of Avery’s mother, Delores, any less powerful. Those empty fish tanks that Allan Avery stares into as he contemplates all the things that might have been would be no less heartbreaking. The sheriff’s department’s obvious conflict of interest and the unctuous, Ned Flanders–esque sanctimony of Ken Kratz, the former Calumet County district attorney who was later forced to resign after a sexting scandal, would have been no less maddening. But a fuller picture would have demanded that the audience consider two other horrifying scenarios: that serving 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit had turned Steven Avery into a predator, and/or that police may have framed a guilty man. In both, the state remains morally complicit in shoring up a corrupt legal system that is stacked against those who don’t have the resources to fight it.

There’s an interesting moment in Making a Murderer’s final episode, when Dean Strang says, “If I’m gonna be perfectly candid, there’s a big part of me that really hopes Steven Avery is guilty of this crime. Because the thought of him being innocent of this crime, and sitting in prison again for something he didn’t do, and now for the rest of his life, without a prayer of parole? I can’t take that.” But as a viewer, I felt the exact opposite: I wanted Avery to be innocent so badly that the bits and pieces of information that trickled out after the series aired were hard to swallow.

The Emotional Manipulations of Making a Murderer

I believe state injustice is no more fixable today than it ever was, pre or post revolution.

 

[Two Thumbs]

anyone that is convinced of a person innocence b/c of a movie is a fucking retard.

an absolute fool, the sucker born that minute.


fyi; I have prime ocean front property in AZ that I'm selling for 1/2 price

 

[jwoodie]

Victims' Rights is another term for Guilty unless proven innocent. Prosecutors routinely excuse any prospective juror with a three-digit IQ and allowed to present inflammatory evidence that has little or no probative value regarding the guilt of the accused. They also coach witnesses to modify their testimony if it doesn't support the prosecution's case. God help you if you are innocent.

 

[KokomoJojo]

anyone that is convinced of a person innocence b/c of a movie is a fucking retard.

an absolute fool, the sucker born that minute.


fyi; I have prime ocean front property in AZ that I'm selling for 1/2 price

Well thats your opinion but you really need to come out here with at least a few supporting facts if you want to be taken seriously at least by me.

Can you support your guilty verdict?

Dean Strang [Avery's Attorney] Discredits Claims Of Missing Evidence In 'Making A Murderer'

Strang represented Avery in his 2007 trial for the murder of Teresa Halbach, during which Strang and fellow defense lawyer Jerry Buting made the case that police officers may have planted evidence to incriminate Avery.
Many "Making a Murderer" viewers seem to agree, but critics say the series doesn't tell the whole story.

Strang told HuffPost Live's Alyona Minkovski that he feels the filmmakers "did a good editorial job" of exploring the arguments made by both the defense and the prosecution within the show's time constraints. "The trial ran six weeks, five days a week, so that's about 200, 240 hours of evidence," Dean Strang Discredits Claims Of Missing Evidence In 'Making A Murderer'

Now he is talking about relevant evidence that can be used in court not unsupported opinions being portrayed as evidence..

 

[Two Thumbs]

anyone that is convinced of a person innocence b/c of a movie is a fucking retard.

an absolute fool, the sucker born that minute.


fyi; I have prime ocean front property in AZ that I'm selling for 1/2 price

Well thats your opinion but you really need to come out here with at least a few supporting facts if you want to be taken seriously at least by me.

Can you support your guilty verdict?

Dean Strang [Avery's Attorney] Discredits Claims Of Missing Evidence In 'Making A Murderer'

Strang represented Avery in his 2007 trial for the murder of Teresa Halbach, during which Strang and fellow defense lawyer Jerry Buting made the case that police officers may have planted evidence to incriminate Avery.
Many "Making a Murderer" viewers seem to agree, but critics say the series doesn't tell the whole story.

Strang told HuffPost Live's Alyona Minkovski that he feels the filmmakers "did a good editorial job" of exploring the arguments made by both the defense and the prosecution within the show's time constraints. "The trial ran six weeks, five days a week, so that's about 200, 240 hours of evidence," Dean Strang Discredits Claims Of Missing Evidence In 'Making A Murderer'

Now he is talking about relevant evidence that can be used in court not unsupported opinions being portrayed as evidence..

he had his day in court, he had a lawyer, the evidence was presented, all of it, in court.

12 people said he was guilty.

I don't take you seriously b/c you're a fool that thinks the media won't lie to you

 

[KokomoJojo]

he had his day in court, he had a lawyer, the evidence was presented, all of it, in court.

12 people said he was guilty.

I don't take you seriously b/c you're a fool that thinks the media won't lie to you

So how do you explain that he had his day in court and the jury came down with a guilty verdict yet he was wrongfully convicted and spent 18 years in prison on false charges? Seems to me you may have a direct contradiction in terms?

The jury deliberated for only four hours and convicted Avery almost exclusively on the eyewitness account, on December 14, 1985. He was sentenced to 32 years in prison.
.
Steven Avery, at the age of 22, was wrongfully convicted of rape. He spent almost twenty years in prison before being exonerated through DNA testing.

_ _ _ _​

On July 29, 1985, at approximately 3:50 p.m., Penny Ann Beernsten was out running along the Lake Michigan shoreline and was apprehended by an unknown man who forced her into a wooded area and sexually assaulted her.

Investigation and Trial
Based on a physical description of Beernsten’s attacker, police provided a photo array of nine men. Beernsten selected the photograph of Steven Avery, who was arrested the following day.
At trial, Beernsten identified Avery as her attacker. A state forensic examiner testified that a hair recovered from a shirt of Avery’s was consistent with Beernsten’s hair.
Avery presented 16 alibi witnesses, including the clerk of a store in Green Bay, Wisconsin, who recalled Avery, accompanied by his wife and five children, buying paint from the store. A checkout tape put the purchase at 5:13 p.m. Beernsten put the attack at 3:50 p.m. and estimated it lasted 15 minutes, which meant that Avery would have had to leave the scene of the attack, walk a mile to the nearest parking area, drive home, load his family into the car, and drive 45 miles in just over an hour.
The jury deliberated for only four hours and convicted Avery almost exclusively on the eyewitness account, on December 14, 1985. He was sentenced to 32 years in prison.

Post-Conviction Investigation

After losing several appeals, a petition for DNA testing was granted in 1995 and showed that scrapings taken of Beernsten’s fingernails contained the DNA of an unknown person. The tests were unable to eliminate Avery, however, and a motion for a new trial was denied.

In April of 2002, attorneys for the Wisconsin Innocence Project obtained a court order for DNA testing of 13 hairs recovered from Beernsten at the time of the crime. The state crime laboratory reported that, using the FBI DNA database, it had linked a hair to Gregory Allen, a convicted felon who bore a striking resemblance to Avery. Allen was then serving a 60-year prison term for a sexual assault in Green Bay that occurred after the attack on Beernsten.
On September 11, 2003, a request brought by the Manitowoc District Attorney’s Office and the Wisconsin Innocence Project to dismiss the charges was granted and Avery was released.
In 2005, with support from Beernsten and Avery, the Wisconsin Department of Justice adopted a model eyewitness identification protocol.
On October 31, 2005, 25-year-old Teresa Halbach was murdered. Avery and his nephew were convicted in separate trials and were both sentenced to life in prison.
- See more at: Steven Avery
Steven Avery, at the age of 22, was wrongfully convicted of rape. He spent almost twenty years in prison before being exonerated through DNA testing.
_ _ _ _

On July 29, 1985, at approximately 3:50 p.m., Penny Ann Beernsten was out running along the Lake Michigan shoreline and was apprehended by an unknown man who forced her into a wooded area and sexually assaulted her.



Investigation and Trial

Based on a physical description of Beernsten’s attacker, police provided a photo array of nine men. Beernsten selected the photograph of Steven Avery, who was arrested the following day.

At trial, Beernsten identified Avery as her attacker. A state forensic examiner testified that a hair recovered from a shirt of Avery’s was consistent with Beernsten’s hair.

Avery presented 16 alibi witnesses, including the clerk of a store in Green Bay, Wisconsin, who recalled Avery, accompanied by his wife and five children, buying paint from the store. A checkout tape put the purchase at 5:13 p.m. Beernsten put the attack at 3:50 p.m. and estimated it lasted 15 minutes, which meant that Avery would have had to leave the scene of the attack, walk a mile to the nearest parking area, drive home, load his family into the car, and drive 45 miles in just over an hour.

The jury deliberated for only four hours and convicted Avery almost exclusively on the eyewitness account, on December 14, 1985. He was sentenced to 32 years in prison.


Post-Conviction Investigation

After losing several appeals, a petition for DNA testing was granted in 1995 and showed that scrapings taken of Beernsten’s fingernails contained the DNA of an unknown person. The tests were unable to eliminate Avery, however, and a motion for a new trial was denied.

In April of 2002, attorneys for the Wisconsin Innocence Project obtained a court order for DNA testing of 13 hairs recovered from Beernsten at the time of the crime. The state crime laboratory reported that, using the FBI DNA database, it had linked a hair to Gregory Allen, a convicted felon who bore a striking resemblance to Avery. Allen was then serving a 60-year prison term for a sexual assault in Green Bay that occurred after the attack on Beernsten.

On September 11, 2003, a request brought by the Manitowoc District Attorney’s Office and the Wisconsin Innocence Project to dismiss the charges was granted and Avery was released.

In 2005, with support from Beernsten and Avery, the Wisconsin Department of Justice adopted a model eyewitness identification protocol.

On October 31, 2005, 25-year-old Teresa Halbach was murdered. Avery and his nephew were convicted in separate trials and were both sentenced to life in prison.
See more at: Steven Avery

So if he was set up and proven innocent before why would you dismiss the high probability that he may be equally innocent this time as well, without giving us some evidence to support your position?

If he is guilty so be it, but its never been proven. Can you prove it?

You come across as if we should never question any verdict just because it went through 'a process' without showing us that the process meets the test of 'beyond reasonable doubt' which is the test required in criminal offenses.

Questioning the conviction last time resulted in his release and a 36 million dollar law suit for false imprisonment after he was exonerated and proven innocent.

 

[320 Years of History]

So, OP, are you merely using the Making a Murderer series as your foil for entreating a discussion about American jurisprudence, or are you suggesting that the Avery case is an illustration of the failings of our system of jurisprudence, or are you seeking and saying something other than that?

If if is so that you view the Avery case as illustrative of our legal system and process' failings, I have to ask did you read the first page of that article? (I'm asking because your link goes to page two of it rather than page one.) On page one, the reader finds the following passages that cannot be overlooked.

Several critics have praised Demos and Ricciardi for their neutral, hands-off decision to present the Avery saga without a narrator, and there’s no question that the format makes for a more addictive series. In this way, Making a Murderer has more in common with the Oscar-winning Murder on a Sunday Morning and Soupçons/The Staircase, two crime documentaries by French director Jean-Xavier de Lestrade, than with the other crime dramas that invite most comparisons, such as the hit podcast Serial or HBO’s The Jinx. Slate’s own June Thomas noted that “the lack of voiceover [in Making a Murderer] makes the show’s indictment of the legal and law enforcement system around Avery even more effective; it lets Ricciardi and Demos communicate their message more subtly—without the willful instructiveness of ... narration—while still allowing viewers to feel as though we are weighing the evidence and deciding guilty or not guilty for ourselves.”

I strongly disagree. Viewers only feel as though they are deciding for themselves. In truth, the conclusions were set up for them long ago. Editing almost 700 hours of material into a taut 10-hour narrative for prime time (roughly 1.4 percent of the footage) necessitates abundant manipulation, but with no narrator at the helm, you are simply less aware of being manipulated. That is its own form of myopia—the tunnel vision of television, as it were—and it brings with it its own set of perils. We are being encouraged to make sweeping decisions based on minimal information—precisely the sort of rush to judgment that Making a Murderer indicts. One risk of such a gambit is that the viewer may feel lied to, or at least mildly cheated, should any glaring omissions surface later. Which I do, now that they they have.
​

I have to admit that I haven't been in a courtroom since Twitter was invented, so I can't say whether the legal system has taken to "soundbite" approach for mounting prosecutions and defenses. I hope it has not, even if that is essentially what some, perhaps many, Americans may consider is the limit of their attention span and/or ability to comprehend.

What's frankly most disturbs me about the article you provided in your OP is that it suggests that there are literally millions of folks -- based on the imaginable viewership of Netflix serial content -- who presume the 10 hours of content they've see is the "whole story" rather than asking themselves whether their indignation is entirely justified. Too many folks these days seem, based on the source and nature of information presentation, willing to trust and not verify. The other thing that most disturbs me is the hypocrisy associated with, as the article's writer notes, the show's producers and directors "indicting" rushes to judgement and yet asking of/inciting among its viewers to carry out exactly that dismissal of rational thought.

As to whether our justice system is "so corrupt," well, I may or may not think it is, but I certainly don't based on the article or Making a Murderer series. I'm sure there exist shortcomings in the theory and practice of our legal system, but for my remarks on whether they can be corrected depends on which ones you have in mind to correct.

I'm certainly not of a mind to take exception over Mr. Avery's specific case outcome until I've read the transcript of the proceedings. Seeing as there are 700 pages of it, I'm fairly certain I won't read it simply because I won't take the time to read 700 pages of stuff pertaining to a very specific mater I, quite frankly, don't give a damn about.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

One cannot expect 'clean debate' when his thread premise fails as a loaded question fallacy.

 

[FA_Q2]

You have made an assertion that the justice system is both failed and corrupt and then another assertion that juries are terrified. Not one of your assertions is factual in the least.

There is corruption in the system mostly centered around money and the ability for criminals to get away with a crime rather than be wrongly accused (though the latter DOES happen - there will always be error in a system that uses humans) as well as sentencing issues. None of that makes the justice system wholly corrupt or beyond salvageable.

I would like to know where you get this idea that juries are afraid to find someone not guilty though - that assertion is false on its face.

 

[Andylusion]

I say no.
I do not see a fix when jury's are terrified and in fear of their lives to vote 'not guilty' against government generated indictments where simply being accused is a guilty verdict.

The Emotional Manipulations of Making a Murderer

Weeks after finishing it, I’ve found myself enraged by this series for reasons I didn’t anticipate.

So is it fair for Making a Murderer to characterize both the people of Manitowoc County and the jury that convicted Avery as members of a mindless lynch mob if they were looking at a different, murkier set of facts?

Had Demos and Ricciardi offered a more layered portrait of Steven Avery, it would not have rendered the suffering of Halbach’s and Avery’s families, especially that of Avery’s mother, Delores, any less powerful. Those empty fish tanks that Allan Avery stares into as he contemplates all the things that might have been would be no less heartbreaking. The sheriff’s department’s obvious conflict of interest and the unctuous, Ned Flanders–esque sanctimony of Ken Kratz, the former Calumet County district attorney who was later forced to resign after a sexting scandal, would have been no less maddening. But a fuller picture would have demanded that the audience consider two other horrifying scenarios: that serving 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit had turned Steven Avery into a predator, and/or that police may have framed a guilty man. In both, the state remains morally complicit in shoring up a corrupt legal system that is stacked against those who don’t have the resources to fight it.

There’s an interesting moment in Making a Murderer’s final episode, when Dean Strang says, “If I’m gonna be perfectly candid, there’s a big part of me that really hopes Steven Avery is guilty of this crime. Because the thought of him being innocent of this crime, and sitting in prison again for something he didn’t do, and now for the rest of his life, without a prayer of parole? I can’t take that.” But as a viewer, I felt the exact opposite: I wanted Avery to be innocent so badly that the bits and pieces of information that trickled out after the series aired were hard to swallow.

The Emotional Manipulations of Making a Murderer

I believe state injustice is no more fixable today than it ever was, pre or post revolution.

See I don't get this idea.

How many convictions for crime have there been in the last 50 years.

How many wrongful convictions have there been the last 50 years.

What ratio of correct convictions, to wrong convictions, have there been?

The people that I talk to, have absolutely no idea how many convictions there have been, nor how many were later found wrong, let alone what ratio there is between the two.

As near as I can tell, the only evidence they have that our system is absolutely corrupt and un-repairable, is that there have been some wrongly convicted people.

But if you focus exclusively on only those cases of wrong convictions.... then you would have to conclude that there is no system on the face of the planet, anywhere, in any culture, in any country, throughout all human history, that was not absolutely corrupt.

And if you conclude that there has never been a non-corrupt justice system.... then what system would you adopt to replace the one we have?

Do you have an answer?

 

[KokomoJojo]

See I don't get this idea.
How many convictions for crime have there been in the last 50 years.
How many wrongful convictions have there been the last 50 years.
What ratio of correct convictions, to wrong convictions, have there been?
The people that I talk to, have absolutely no idea how many convictions there have been, nor how many were later found wrong, let alone what ratio there is between the two.
As near as I can tell, the only evidence they have that our system is absolutely corrupt and un-repairable, is that there have been some wrongly convicted people.
But if you focus exclusively on only those cases of wrong convictions.... then you would have to conclude that there is no system on the face of the planet, anywhere, in any culture, in any country, throughout all human history, that was not absolutely corrupt.

And if you conclude that there has never been a non-corrupt justice system.... then what system would you adopt to replace the one we have?

Do you have an answer?

First you need to start with this case which is proof of gross corruption. Feel free to defend the state.

Next you can stop trying to shift this on to me by asking the same question I asked in the OP.

My question to you is what do you need for 'evidence' ALL wrongly convicted people ALL the time for EVERY case that ever existed which if taken to its ultimate cnclusion is what you are implying.

Now if you want to stay in context with the OP it means 'WILLFULLY/KNOWINGLY wrongly convicted people' by the sytem.

 

[KokomoJojo]

You have made an assertion that the justice system is both failed and corrupt and then another assertion that juries are terrified. Not one of your assertions is factual in the least.

There is corruption in the system mostly centered around money and the ability for criminals to get away with a crime rather than be wrongly accused (though the latter DOES happen - there will always be error in a system that uses humans) as well as sentencing issues. None of that makes the justice system wholly corrupt or beyond salvageable.

I would like to know where you get this idea that juries are afraid to find someone not guilty though - that assertion is false on its face.

When no remedy can be had its beyond salvageable. I asked for a solution in the OP, if you feel its salvageable under the conditions of no remedy available please explain how that can work.

Finally:


Making a Murderer Creators: Juror Feared Being Framed by Police

• Eliana Dockterman

Jan. 5, 2016
The filmmakers on the juror's new information and why Ken Kratz should be 'embarrassed' about his recent comments

“If they could frame Steven Avery, they could do it to me.” That’s how a juror in the Steven Avery case featured in Netflix’s Making a Murderer recently explained to filmmakers why he voted Avery guilty of murder in 2005, despite believing Avery was innocent, according to the creators of the show.
Correction appended: Jan. 6, 2016

Correction: The original version of this story misstated the creators’ description of the juror. The creators did not state whether the juror was male or female.
Making a Murderer Creators: Juror Feared Being Framed by Police

Seems the jurors are terrified of government reprisal wouldnt you agree?

 

[KokomoJojo]

One cannot expect 'clean debate' when his thread premise fails as a loaded question fallacy.

sounds like something we should sort out right away!

What argument(s) are you putting up in support of your loaded question proposition?

Loaded question
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]
Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2] The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.[2] The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.[2] Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example, the previous question would not be loaded if it was asked during a trial in which the defendant has already admitted to beating his wife.[2]
This fallacy should be distinguished from that of begging the question (not to be confused with raising the question),[3] which offers a premise whose plausibility depends on the truth of the proposition asked about, and which is often an implicit restatement of the proposition.[4]

Its kool that you believe its a fallacy but its unkool when you say it without supporting it in the form of a 'naked assertion' fallacy. The naked assertion fallacy means you are making unsupported arguments hence they have no value.

Naked or "Bare" Assertions
A "naked" assertion is simply an assertion without any evidence, proof, or other support. It is usually based on the false presumption that since we all have "a right to an opinion", that this implies that our opinions must be automatically accepted as valid. What invariably proceeds the blunder of a "naked" assertion is the logical fallacy of "shifting the burden of proof" which further illustrates that the arguer has no concept of logic.

Then again your loaded question assertion may be correct if you are asserting that its not a foregone conclusion the government is corrupt, good luck selling that one? I will await your considered arguments in support of your 'naked' statements.

 

[xband]

A great unfortunate experience for me and worse than going to jail or Vietnam; Jury Duty where I had to wear a badge saying Juror. The Court Room was mild but the Jury Room was hot.

 

[KokomoJojo]

A great unfortunate experience for me and worse than going to jail or Vietnam; Jury Duty where I had to wear a badge saying Juror. The Court Room was mild but the Jury Room was hot.

yours had a ringer or two too?

 

[FA_Q2]

You have made an assertion that the justice system is both failed and corrupt and then another assertion that juries are terrified. Not one of your assertions is factual in the least.

There is corruption in the system mostly centered around money and the ability for criminals to get away with a crime rather than be wrongly accused (though the latter DOES happen - there will always be error in a system that uses humans) as well as sentencing issues. None of that makes the justice system wholly corrupt or beyond salvageable.

I would like to know where you get this idea that juries are afraid to find someone not guilty though - that assertion is false on its face.

When no remedy can be had its beyond salvageable. I asked for a solution in the OP, if you feel its salvageable under the conditions of no remedy available please explain how that can work.

Considering that I find your premise to be deeply flawed - there is no point in trying to explain how I would 'salvage' the system. You are flatly incorrect in your statments. You would have to prove your premise first. A single case proves virtually nothing at all. In a pool of TENS of THOUSANDS of convictions per year, the fact that you pull one case out of Hollywood is not substantial.

The estimates that I have seen as far as wrongful convictions go would be between 0.5% and 3%. Both numbers that do not reflect a system where juries 'fear' innocent verdicts or a system that is wholly corrupt.

Does it need attention? Of course it does. I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of wrongful convictions have absolutely nothing to do with corruption. Instead, they fall in 2 areas - the woefully inadequate public defense system and plea barganing. One solution that would address both is actually providing defendants with QUALITY legal defense and advice. Quite frankly I think the state should be barred from prosecuting anyone at all when an adequate public defender cannot be provided. That means one that is paid properly to invest the proper amount of TIME required for a real defence. Start there - ensure that everyone has proper legal potions and advice.

Finally:


Making a Murderer Creators: Juror Feared Being Framed by Police

• Eliana Dockterman

Jan. 5, 2016
The filmmakers on the juror's new information and why Ken Kratz should be 'embarrassed' about his recent comments

“If they could frame Steven Avery, they could do it to me.” That’s how a juror in the Steven Avery case featured in Netflix’s Making a Murderer recently explained to filmmakers why he voted Avery guilty of murder in 2005, despite believing Avery was innocent, according to the creators of the show.
Correction appended: Jan. 6, 2016

Correction: The original version of this story misstated the creators’ description of the juror. The creators did not state whether the juror was male or female.
Making a Murderer Creators: Juror Feared Being Framed by Police

Seems the jurors are terrified of government reprisal wouldnt you agree?

No, I would not. What you have is a SINGLE case and a SINGLE person on that jury that is used by Hollywood a source of extreme sensationalism to maximize profits. A single person being an idiot proves absolutely nothing and certainly does not lend any credence to your blanket claim that juries in general fear giving innocent verdicts.

 

[320 Years of History]

A great unfortunate experience for me and worse than going to jail or Vietnam; Jury Duty where I had to wear a badge saying Juror. The Court Room was mild but the Jury Room was hot.

Does that mean you met for cocktails after deliberation and hooked up for an assignation? (or two?) LOL

Or does it just mean the thermostat was set too high?

 

[jwoodie]

Regardless of whether you think he is guilty or innocent, it appears that Avery deserved a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct. Unfortunately, he now has the burden of proving his innocence.

Why do some believe that police, prosecutors and judges are morally or ethically superior to other people? In my experience, people who seek this type of authority are more likely to abuse it.

 

[KokomoJojo]

When no remedy can be had its beyond salvageable. I asked for a solution in the OP, if you feel its salvageable under the conditions of no remedy available please explain how that can work.

Considering that I find your premise to be deeply flawed - there is no point in trying to explain how I would 'salvage' the system. You are flatly incorrect in your statments. You would have to prove your premise first. A single case proves virtually nothing at all. In a pool of TENS of THOUSANDS of convictions per year, the fact that you pull one case out of Hollywood is not substantial.

The estimates that I have seen as far as wrongful convictions go would be between 0.5% and 3%. Both numbers that do not reflect a system where juries 'fear' innocent verdicts or a system that is wholly corrupt.

Does it need attention? Of course it does. I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of wrongful convictions have absolutely nothing to do with corruption. Instead, they fall in 2 areas - the woefully inadequate public defense system and plea barganing. One solution that would address both is actually providing defendants with QUALITY legal defense and advice. Quite frankly I think the state should be barred from prosecuting anyone at all when an adequate public defender cannot be provided. That means one that is paid properly to invest the proper amount of TIME required for a real defence. Start there - ensure that everyone has proper legal potions and advice.

Finally:


Making a Murderer Creators: Juror Feared Being Framed by Police

• Eliana Dockterman

Jan. 5, 2016
The filmmakers on the juror's new information and why Ken Kratz should be 'embarrassed' about his recent comments

“If they could frame Steven Avery, they could do it to me.” That’s how a juror in the Steven Avery case featured in Netflix’s Making a Murderer recently explained to filmmakers why he voted Avery guilty of murder in 2005, despite believing Avery was innocent, according to the creators of the show.
Correction appended: Jan. 6, 2016

Correction: The original version of this story misstated the creators’ description of the juror. The creators did not state whether the juror was male or female.
Making a Murderer Creators: Juror Feared Being Framed by Police

Seems the jurors are terrified of government reprisal wouldnt you agree?

No, I would not. What you have is a SINGLE case and a SINGLE person on that jury that is used by Hollywood a source of extreme sensationalism to maximize profits. A single person being an idiot proves absolutely nothing and certainly does not lend any credence to your blanket claim that juries in general fear giving innocent verdicts.

Considering that I find your premise to be deeply flawed - there is no point in trying to explain how I would 'salvage' the system.

The estimates that I have seen as far as wrongful convictions go would be between 0.5% and 3%. Both numbers that do not reflect a system where juries 'fear' innocent verdicts or a system that is wholly corrupt.

There is a huge difference between PROVEN wrongful convictions which are the ONLY ones you see and the greater majority that will remain forever unproven because there is NO REMEDY for those who never have the opportunity to get a retrial as a result of the corruption of law by corrupt government.

Avery's Jury conviction for the crime of rape is PROVEN, he was found INNOCENT AFTER 18 YEARS IN THE JOINT, and the corruption in Averys second case is also PROVEN if you look at the evidence.

One solution that would address both is actually providing defendants with QUALITY legal defense and advice.[

Quite frankly I think the state should be barred from prosecuting anyone at all when an adequate public defender cannot be provided.

Avery paid 1/2 a million for his defense with a couple of the best attorneys that could be had who did an excellent job defending him btw, and a compliment like that is rare coming from me, yet he went back to prison on false charges a second time, that is case 1 and case 2 is the dassey kid who they also railroaded into prison on completely bullshit charges.

Start there - ensure that everyone has proper legal potions and advice.

But your solution only works in the imagination not in practice as the system has proven.

What you have is a SINGLE case and a SINGLE person on that jury that is used by Hollywood a source of extreme sensationalism to maximize profits. A single person being an idiot proves absolutely nothing and certainly does not lend any credence to your blanket claim that juries in general fear giving innocent verdicts.

1) On one hand you admit to there being several PROVEN CASES of wrongful conviction and gave a percentage.

2) You then go on to characterize the corruption as 'not a problem' first because it is just a small percentage and at the same time pretending there is no real problem by arguing that I only put up a single case and it is hollywood drama all carrying the meaning it is of little importance, all is well no need to be concerned.

It looks like you are trying to get on both sides of the argument at the same time yet leave people with the idea its no real concern as if it does not count that in each case both the person accused and their families are destroyed with no recourse?

I do not agree with anyone who would promote the idea that the system is corrupt but its ok.

There are plenty of cases to be had and provided to prove the point to bar card holders and anyone with moderate legal experience. I do not know where you stand in legal experience but it appears you are posting without knowledge of the case for starters since the documentary has NO NARRATION just what the people involved said and court proceedings.

It cant get more non-hollywood than that so how can you paint it as hollywood?

Another huge gross example of state corruption is the Richard Fine series of cases, and Richard Fine is an ex attorney general and professor of law, NOT SOME IDIOT as you portray and paint the people, meaning he taught law in the university before he too was 'accused' and as a result of the nature of the case (against the state) has been destroyed and is presently trapped in the legal web of terror and destruction.

If you or anyone else feels they can defend the US, the governments et all who operate under the same legal system with similar results feel free to do so, but please avoid wrongfully characterizing the arguments I am making which is mostly what I have seen so far, and take a little time to review the evidence presented in the documentary which Avery's attorney points out (correctly imo) that it fairly portrays the proper evidence on both sides that would ultimately be used to decide the case.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Regardless of whether you think he is guilty or innocent, it appears that Avery deserved a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct. Unfortunately, he now has the burden of proving his innocence.

Why do some believe that police, prosecutors and judges are morally or ethically superior to other people? In my experience, people who seek this type of authority are more likely to abuse it.

Worse, the 16yo dassey kid who has a learning disability and an iq of only 65-70 who when you see the gestapo tactics used on this this kid is disturbing and evil beyond any words of adequate description.

The prisons today are now for profit corporation that trade on the stock market! The whole system is one gigantic conflict of interest and this is the fruits we reap from following them instead of our principles.