evilsoup wrote:of course the underlying problems behind those laws and the attitudes that would lead to a jury buying that shit aren't limited to any one place.
Yea, the concept of the jury has been entirely coopted by the system (indeed, it may have been from the beginning, but it seems to me like it might have been a revolutionary idea at one point). As I understand it, juries are basically lied to, told that their job is *only* to apply the law and *only* to consider what they are told on the record, which of course leaves a lot out.
This very often benefits the state and other elites, so they aren't really in favor of changing it. Sometimes they lose individual cases but often it lets them manipulate things to their advantage. (Indeed, in this case even, the state may have lost, but the whitemale won; the system is indeed "working" for the dominant class.)
The jury might feel that a law is unjust or a punishment excessive, but they are told that doesn't matter.
A jury surely is never perfect and can indeed bring their own biases to make things worse than the law alone would be in theory.... but when twisted by things like "the law says 'reasonable' and you must have no doubt" the main benefit of them - judging the law itself in a specific case - is totally erased, leaving only the bad.