It’s kind of funny but I just finished with being called for jury duty last week and the prosecutor gave a hypothetical to the jury where he proposed that “Charles Manson had just been released from prison and a boy scout saw him on the street and then took a baseball bat and then attacked Charles Manson with the baseball bat.” He then posed the question to the potential jury “Would you convict him?”
To my utter astonishment, every single one of the potential jurors answer “Yes”.
The funny thing is I had spoken to a couple of them before and the two that I had spoken to both said they really didn’t want to serve on the jury, but they apparently were more afraid of being politically incorrect than they were in telling the truth or actually standing up for justice. If they had answered “no” they could have avoided jury service. But they all (like lemmings) just said they would have no problem sending the boy scout to prison for beating Charles Manson with a baseball bat.
Not one of them even asked “Convict him of what?” They just said they would have no problem convicting the boy scout.
They didn’t ask me. I would have responded by asking if they had a special merit badge for something like that.
I would think he committed a public service and should be rewarded. Just like in this case. Instead of giving the defendant a reward for public service, they send him to jail.
But that is what you have. Jurors who follow instructions like their own lives depend on it. Anyone with the ability to think for themselves is not considered juror material.
That is a great story. You should put it in your files.
I might steal it for a sermon some day.
He's already been convicted, sentenced, and had his sentence reduced from death to life. If he's out on the street, that sentence was reduced too. I'd convict him again if I could, but hopefully the kid made any further conviction posthumous.