Everyone be aware!
Ok, not really.
But the so-called "Snaggletooth Killer" is once again on the loose.
The irony? Turns out he's not a killer anymore. Now? He's a celebrity!
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the man who was convicted twice for a murder is now free.
And all this is due to the United States justice system. Supposedly these days, convicting criminals is not enough; we are now convicting people of crimes they didn't commit.
Ray Krone was convicted for murder and sentenced to death. After a second trial, his sentence was changed to life due to doubt in the court.
Several years later, it is discovered that he didn't commit the crime after DNA tests were run on some bite marks.
Now, after being exonerated, he has been selected to appear on Extreme Makeover and will receive extensive dental work.
To get to the point, it scares me that the justice system today is covicting so many people who are innocent. After all, this is nto the first time. I mean, how many innocent people are rotting in jail last night?
And on the reverse, what about all the guilty people who are on the loose? (cough cough OJ)
When it comes down to it, the matter of whether one is guilty or not, in America's justice system, pretty much is based solely on the jury. If you get a nice jury, you're innocent. If not, you're guilty.
Does anyone else see something wrong about this?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
"If you get a nice jury, you're innocent. If not, you're guilty."
Thats a broad generalization that I just don't agree with. I think that in the vast majority of cases, the facts are clear enough that the mind-set of the jury doesn't matter a lot. The judge gives clear instructions for how to rule based on the evidence given. The judge, in a written statement given to the jury, carefully explains which points the jury is supposed to decide on, and what kind of evidence presented in the trial should be considered on each point. The jury basically follows a road-map, and the only decisions they are really supposed to make are "reasonable doubt" judgements. The definition of "reasonable doubt" does change from one jury to the next, slightly, but overall, I really can't think of a better system.
The system itself is a good idea, and can actually work really well.
It's just that there are so many logistical problems that lead to cases like the one described above.
One of the main problems with this system is that it's easy to get blatantly unfair and biased people working on cases, and there isn't a strong enough infrastructure to check and prevent that from happening a lot of the time.