Comments by "Don Taylor" (@dontaylor7315) on "Actual Innocence Might Not Be Enough to Get You Out of Prison" video.

@UncleKennysPlace "Shouldn't that depend on why they convicted you?" That seems to imply that wrongful imprisonment is ok depending on why you were convicted. Which wrongful imprisonmens are ok and which kinds of convictions make those wrongful imprisonments ok?
12
@jddrafts In that scenario I don't see how criminal courts can even get juries empaneled. Under those circumstances I'd rather go to jail for not reporting for jury duty than sit in fear of my life in a jury box. And even if a guilty verdict doesn't involve a death sentence I could be at risk for thousands of dollars in restitution for a wrongful incarceration. Short of skipping out on jury duty the only other safe course for a juror would be to vote not guilty EVERY TIME no matter the crime, no matter the testimony, no matter the evidence.
5
@jddrafts "One hundred percent absolutely certain" isn't good enough. For safety's sake, a not guilty vote is the only prudent course - or else just failing to report for jury duty.
4
@UncleKennysPlace I referenced your reply to the post by @billythekid9061 who argued juries shouldn't be punished for their verdicts. I agree with that post and your current reply to me, both of which suggest it's the prosecutor not the jury that's in a position to bring about wrongful imprisonment. The jury shouldn't be punished imo. Nevertheless I don't believe the wrongfully imprisoned should be left in lockup after actual innocence is established. EDIT: Retribution should apply to prosecutors and judges who suppress exculpatory evidence.
3
@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket "Prosecutor yes..." I agree. "Jury no..." Agree. "Judge maybe." Yes, if the judge suppresses evidence of innocence or forbids defense to use specific arguments that would help to win an acquittal.
3
@radolfkalis4041 Right, so if you're a juror it's your fault that the prosecutor quashed exonerating testimony and evidence and the judge forbad the defense attorney from telling you about it.
2
@jddrafts That means we'll have professional jurors instead of regular citizens doing a civic duty, but if you're going to place juries under onerous threats then that's what it could come to.
1
@radolfkalis4041 Did you see the post I was replying to? I neglected to write /s on my reply but I thought the context would make it obvious.
1
@A-GreenWhiteGreen-Patriot "If he judges wrong, he should not be a judge." Then human beings can't be judges. A judge who's never made a decision in error is like a lawyer who's never lost a case, a doctor who's never lost a patient or a bus driver who's never been late to a stop - there's no such thing. The only way a judge or ANYONE ELSE should be punished for an error is if it WASN'T an error but a matter of knowingly taking part in a miscarriage of justice, especially a frame-up.
1