The genuine guilt and trauma expressed by nearly all the witnesses so far has been very striking. If the jury can not put that into appropriate context from the people who were actually there than we have a broken judicial system.
That's something I hear a lot that makes zero sense to me. It wouldn't be broken. It'd be working as intended. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is a very high standard to reach and juries are forces of darkness; you never know what minute details that the prosecution thought were irrelevant they will use to blow up what looks like a slam dunk case.
I can only think of three "solutions" if you really want to say the system is broken if this ends up in a not guilty: either some kinds of cases shouldn't get due process, the burden to convict on criminal cases is too high, or letting amateurs (jurors) try the facts is wrong. All of those sound awful to me. If there's some other solution I'm missing I'm all ears.
I mean, there are people who argue that the juror system is flawed, especially the selection part. For high profile cases you essentially have to weed out all high-information consumers of news. You can end up with people who don't have enough knowledge to understand the case. One example being many if not most jurors in the OJ Simpson case didn't understand what DNA is, which is often given as a major reason why OJ was acquitted. I don't know what the exact solution is, other than a Constitutional Convention to alter the way the legal system is set up to establish some standards for jurors.
Poll
