to be really surprised that a jury can convict someone on such flimsy evidence?

[ciabattav0nbreadstickz]

I watched a programe recently, BBC 3, about the death penalty and crime in America.

There was a case involving a mass killing of 8 members of a family and the near fatal injury of another, the son of one of the victims - Guy Heinze Jr -was accused of killing all 8 people on his own.

Did anyone else see this? I mean, I know I wasn't on the jury and didn't hear the full evidence but from what was shown and the evidence that is available on the net and so on it just doesn't seem enough to convict someone of such an awful crime. How does one person kill 8 people in the same place at the same time without at least one of them getting away or alerting someone? Aibu to wonder how these jury members could have been absolutely convinced of his guilt?

The whole thing just seemed to highlight just how easily flaws in the system can result in someone ending up imprisoned for life or on death row, just made me very sad

Any documentary that I watch that contains jury interviews makes me want an overhaul of the criminal justice system.

Didn't he have the victims blood on him? And in his car? I have seen this programme on a previous screening, I remember it being very emotive. At the end of the day it was a one hour programme with an agenda. I would tentatively suggest that perhaps there was a reason to suspect him and a reason to deny him bail. I've worked in prisons (not in America) for a long time- keeping unconvicted prisoners on remand is expensive, they require more mh services, visits, supervision, they cannot be sanctioned in the same ways for bad behaviour, and they have no obligation to work to 'compensate' some of the cost. So I'd imagine there may be more to it than this documentary suggested. And I know for a fact that if my neighbour was suspected of killing 9 people, I would want them remanded, however unfair this may turn out to be.

Starling "Any documentary that I watch that contains jury interviews makes me want an overhaul of the criminal justice system"

do you mean professional jurors? I would like those.

do you mean professional jurors? I would like those.

The problem with that is no one will ever be found not guilty ever again. As things stand, a juror can use their conscience, as well as apply the law. This means that really bad laws become difficult, if not impossible to enforce, as jurors have the final say.

Take that away, and a court just becomes a soviet-style gulag holding pen.

Remember, going back not that far into history, and jurors could be (and were) jailed for not delivering the verdict the judge ordered.

You should look up the Steven Avery case!

His mum looked heartbroken and didn't want to lose another child, but you can't decide based on that. She was never the one being punished.

Yet at the point her son is executed, she will be handed an emotional sentence of life without parole!

I have never understood how someone who has suffered the devastation of a loved one being killed, can clamour for that same devastation to be forced on someone else. America's death penalty is the ultimate example of first degree murder with special circumstances.

What is even less comprehensible is that a lot of the dp states are bible belt...what part of 'thou shalt not kill' don't they understand? Two wrongs do not make a right.

I thought the same OP.. I wasn't convinced he was innocent but I can't believe he did it alone. Once you start beating someone, the noise would alert the others surely? There was one room with 3/4 people in I think, why did the others not overpower him when he started attacking one of them? It seems not enough investigating into all possibilities was done.

On the death penalty - I'm opposed to it too. John Oliver's tv show did a segment on the death penalty, well worth a watch. It's on youtube here: . Apparently it costs far, far more (think hundreds of millions of dollars) to enforce the death penalty than it does to keep someone in prison for life. Statistics show that it doesn't act as a deterrent - states without the death penalty have the same or lower crime rates than states which have the death penalty. And the fact that innocent people have been executed, and continue to be, is sickening, and in my opinion reason enough to never execute anyone ever.

On juries - I dislike them in general, but they do come in handy when a person is technically guilty of a crime but doesn't deserve to be punished for it. Juries can deliver a not-guilty verdict whether they think the defendant is innocent or not. We all know cases where we think the perpetrator shouldn't suffer for their actions, even where the law says they must.