Jury System: Can it survive testilying?

Quick tip: Read more about testilying and other LE abuses.

Cops lie in court. But isn't the court supposed to catch this?

Lying to do the right thing?

The American legal system does little to inspire confidence when it requires the public to continue to assent to such arrogance. US police officers have no credibility. The present jury system needs to be either reformed or abolished.

Let’s look at brief history of jurisprudence. Before juries, there were trials by ordeal. The accused was forced to hold hot coals. If they were innocent God would intervene.

Many centuries ago, the juries were made up of neighbors, nor impartial witnesses. Rather than hear evidence, the jury members would simply discuss their view of the situation, and make their decision.

They came to their conclusion based on their personal impressions of the parties. No evidence was heard. The juries simply swore an oath to God.

Today, there is another quirk in the jury system. Sworn officer are lying. Just because a police officer says something in court, it doesn’t mean they’re telling the truth.

For the jury system to survive, there need to be reforms. The days of the trial by ordeal and quiet consultation of neighbors are over. So too should end the days of officers collectively deciding that they are going to pin something on someone.

The solution to this problem is to reform the jury system. What is to be done?

There need to be some demonstrated basis for believing that the officer is not lying. It should not be up to the accused to “prove their innocence” by attempting to show the officers have a pattern of misconduct.

The burden of proof on the officer veracity should move from the defendant to the state. Sworn officers should not be able to simply make accusations; rather, the state should have the burden of proof to prove why officers should be believed.

The officers need to have a higher burden of proof. Just as lawyers cannot be witnesses, so longer should officers be able to be witnesses. Rather, the state should have the same burden as the accused in finding impartial witnesses.

There also need to be some meaningful sanctions on officers for their misconduct. It is a shame that despite the known veracity and patterns of abuses within law enforcement, that the government has taken a “hands off approach.”

Strange, based on mere innuendo, the government takes a very active interest in the private affairs of non-crimminals. It would seem reasonable that if the government were to maintain legitimacy, it would intrude just as much into the private affairs of government officials before they do so in the private affairs of the public.

Yet, why are officers afforded the special privilege of being a “private citizens” and “cannot be intruded upon,” then turn around and suggest that the public does not have this immunity?

The officers in the American legal system are unreliable. The jury system, if it is to survive, needs to be reformed.

The US has no credibility when it touts the benefits of the jury system, all the while its officers continue to lie with impunity.

Court sanctions, the legal system, training and management have failed. What is needed is a shift in the balance in the foundation of the jury system.

One that truly puts the public in par with the constitution and the notion of innocence until proven guilty, not require accused people to prove their innocence before lying officers who will do anything to put innocent people in jail.