Yes Peggy, it can be depressing but it is obviously an old question.
The film was released in 1957.

In 1976 Quincy M.E. TV show explored the concept of forensic pathology. It gave the public a dramatic look at the world of science in determining guilt. This 'view' being updated periodically with other shows like the multiple CSI series.
Then you had a series of courtroom dramas that further exposed the public to legal terms, each shifted to a different agenda.

Personal prejudices directly affect our decision making. In real life, 12 jurors are asked to put aside those prejudices to make a determination of guilt or innocence based on the facts as presented by the court. They are being placed with the responsibility to affect not only a person but possibly set a precedence on how other will be judged in the future.
All based on the ability to disregard their own prejudices.
In a perfect world, that might work. In the actual world, evidence might be ignored or given less credence without intent. This sways the impact of the evidence.

This is why despite damning evidence, some go free or are dismissed where others are sentenced in innocence. It is an involuntary reflex to personal bias. If a percentage of the jurors have reasonable doubt there can be conflict in the verdict that results in an inaccurate verdict of convenience.

Its also why sometimes a guilty person, with evidence that proves their guilt is dismissed from the charges. The jury is sympathetic to extenuating circumstances of the case. Evidence is less of a determining factor.

But... consider the alternative. If every case were decided robotically by the evidence gathered and presented who would be truly innocent and just whom would be truly guilty in all cases?
What a cold, cruel, compassionless world that would be. It wouldn't only depress me it would scare the hell out of me.

Yes Peggy, it can be depressing but it is obviously an old question.
The film was released in 1957.

In 1976 Quincy M.E. TV show explored the concept of forensic pathology. It gave the public a dramatic look at the world of science in determining guilt. This 'view' being updated periodically with other shows like the multiple CSI series.
Then you had a series of courtroom dramas that further exposed the public to legal terms, each shifted to a different agenda.

Personal prejudices directly affect our decision making. In real life, 12 jurors are asked to put aside those prejudices to make a determination of guilt or innocence based on the facts as presented by the court. They are being placed with the responsibility to affect not only a person but possibly set a precedence on how other will be judged in the future.
All based on the ability to disregard their own prejudices.
In a perfect world, that might work. In the actual world, evidence might be ignored or given less credence without intent. This sways the impact of the evidence.

This is why despite damning evidence, some go free or are dismissed where others are sentenced in innocence. It is an involuntary reflex to personal bias. If a percentage of the jurors have reasonable doubt there can be conflict in the verdict that results in an inaccurate verdict of convenience.

Its also why sometimes a guilty person, with evidence that proves their guilt is dismissed from the charges. The jury is sympathetic to extenuating circumstances of the case. Evidence is less of a determining factor.

But... consider the alternative. If every case were decided robotically by the evidence gathered and presented who would be truly innocent and just whom would be truly guilty in all cases?
What a cold, cruel, compassionless world that would be. It wouldn't only depress me it would scare the hell out of me.

Actus reus, mens rea, beyond a reasonable doubt, and attendant circumstances, usually.
Different aspects weigh different amounts in consideration.
Depends on the crime or offense.
Civil? Criminal? Federal? State? Local? Misdemeanor? Felony?
Exactly which law was violated and where?
And what is the exact wording and terminology of the law(s)/statute(s) alleged to be broken?


Because law (in the U.S. at least, generally) is predicated on "it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
And "Innocent until proven guilty."
Which pushes the burden of proof primarily on prosecutors to prove someone did something, rather than defenders having to prove they didn't do something, or prove someone else did it.
Better for the innocent to go in with doubt, rather already tried and goalseek.

Being found not guilty doesn't mean someone didn't do it. Only that the prosecutor didn't sufficiently provide everything necessary that the law dictates is necessary in order for the government to have authority to release its power against the alleged perpetrator.

Other than that, I don't know from whose perspective you mean "doubt."
The judge? Jury? Prosecutor? Defendant? Family members on one side or the other? Victim? Or just the general population? People that only watch Law and Order on t.v. and believe that's an accurate portrayal of the legal system? People whose only exposure to the legal system is via television and media like Yahoo!news or court t.v. or a movie on Netflix?


A costly (in time and money) process.

Also, do you understand the difference between admission and plea?


That's not all that true.
A judge can overrule a jury.
But only towards not guilty or mistrial.
If a jury finds someone not guilty a judge can't declare them guilty, only judge a mistrial and have it potentially retried. If the jury finds someone guilty, a judge can overrule them and declare the defendant not guilty.

Not to mention the judge still has final say (generally, unless the state/law has mandatory minimums or amounts) on sentencing. Amount of jail time, how much money is awarded, etc.
So, theoretically at least, someone can be found guilty, but receive absolutely no penalties or punishments whatsoever.

I think the weight of evidence sometimes qualifies

The problem with DNA is it only proves that either a person was present someplace or that someone who was around that person at some point was present

because DNA can be transferred from place to place

and mere presence isn't enough to have guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt' particularly if it is any place that the accused is known to frequent.

there is no real qualifier, its all perception of those on the jury. perception of how 'likely' it is that something is true of the person they are observing and how likely it is that those testifying are honest and genuine.

they say if there is means, motive, and opportunity

legally, the only real qualifier is consensus on the grounds that are explained to them in their jury instructions.

you can thank the LAPD for that... About as incompetent as a bunch of monkeys collecting evidence...

Just how valid is an evidence or witness to the actual truth of the crime?
Is the judgement based on the validity of the evidence or the predisposition of those who consider it?

OJ Simpson left his DNA and it did not help.

Hummm beyond proof or admission or evidence that proves beyond a shadow of doubt nothing does...

Even if you know one is guilty with out those things then it is up to each to judge as they feel fit...

If they admit to a crime and they give certain details facts that actually ties them to the crime that is all it would take..

Just like the lady that sent bombs to Obama at one time and to another.. It took evidence in order to link her to the packages.. This was just on tv this morning the evidence that may convict her is cat hair... Yes I said cat hair on the devices think it was some tape she used had cat hairs on the tape with DNA ect they have linked it to one of her cats...

So sometimes it is a small thing like cat hair that may convict a person...I'm sure they found more things but that was one of the main factors..

But unless they found more then that she could get off, if the cat at any time went outside even that could be disputed due to who knows where else that cat might call home..

Maybe the alleged offender's fingerprints all over the crime scene with no other's present?

and so should Al Frankin