zlacker

>>jselig+(OP)
I think because we all made the presumption that obvious police abuses would be punished once we had video evidence.

We didn't take into consideration the justice system's complete lack of appetite at holding officers responsible for egregious violations of life, civil liberties, and property rights.

>>isbjor+96
Well, I always think about the Rodney King case: you and I saw a very damning video, played over and over again, on the news that looked incriminating as hell. But when the case went to trial, the jury voted not guilty. What did they see that we didn't? Did they make the right choice, after having seen a lot more evidence than we did? Or are jury trials just inherently untrustworthy?

>>comman+Pi
I have to wonder if the tendency for capital and other extreme punishments actually ends up being a deterrent to convictions for people who can get a shred of empathy from a jury. It's easy to proclaim that someone is a murderer when they're just a symbol on a screen and you're powerless. But being handed the reigns to their life and told to weigh the situation closely is a completely different experience.

Of course juries also require a unanimous agreement, and there is always the bootlicking contingent. Jury nullification is great anti-state concept in general, but often ends up used to remove accountability for sub-state power structures.