Post #18820 by albaby1 on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy ❤

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (10)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 9

I love this argument. It basically says that the prosecution doesn't need to actually prove anything; the jury just needs to say, "This a$$hole is guilty" and it's all good.

No, it doesn't. And the fact that you say that means you don't understand the argument.

The prosecution needs to prove all of the elements of the crime. If all the elements of the crime are agreed unanimously by the jury to have been proven, then a guilty verdict is in order. However, the jurors do not need to be unanimous about how the elements of the crime have been proven. If Bob threatens Alice with a weapon, and the jurors are unanimous that he did in fact threaten her with a weapon but disagree whether that weapon was a knife or a gun, Bob can be convicted of assault with a deadly weapon - because the jurors are unanimous on the element being proven, even though they differ on what the weapon was.

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (10)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.