[Grut]

If you knew (not merely stongly suspected) the accused was guilty of the crime would you still maintain that "the system worked" if a "not guilty" verdict were reached?

The jury system is designed to make the state prove its case; if it fails to do so and the jury finds for the defendant, then it worked. The object is not to find the guilty 'guilty' but to find the not guilty 'not guilty'.

Ideally, of course, it's to find both; but in a fallible world, we choose to err on the side of caution.

[highball]

Grut's absolutly correct.

Guilty people going free doesn't mean that the system isn't working, it only means that the prosecution didn't prove its case.

The only way a verdict tells us that the system isn't working is when an innocent man is convicted. Our legal system is invariably slanted far in the direction of the accused's rights, since the prosecution has the weight of the State behind it.

This verdict may not be correct. But it in no way tells us anything about the state of our justice system.