Yes Peggy, it can be depressing but it is obviously an old question.
The film was released in 1957.

In 1976 Quincy M.E. TV show explored the concept of forensic pathology. It gave the public a dramatic look at the world of science in determining guilt. This 'view' being updated periodically with other shows like the multiple CSI series.
Then you had a series of courtroom dramas that further exposed the public to legal terms, each shifted to a different agenda.

Personal prejudices directly affect our decision making. In real life, 12 jurors are asked to put aside those prejudices to make a determination of guilt or innocence based on the facts as presented by the court. They are being placed with the responsibility to affect not only a person but possibly set a precedence on how other will be judged in the future.
All based on the ability to disregard their own prejudices.
In a perfect world, that might work. In the actual world, evidence might be ignored or given less credence without intent. This sways the impact of the evidence.

This is why despite damning evidence, some go free or are dismissed where others are sentenced in innocence. It is an involuntary reflex to personal bias. If a percentage of the jurors have reasonable doubt there can be conflict in the verdict that results in an inaccurate verdict of convenience.

Its also why sometimes a guilty person, with evidence that proves their guilt is dismissed from the charges. The jury is sympathetic to extenuating circumstances of the case. Evidence is less of a determining factor.

But... consider the alternative. If every case were decided robotically by the evidence gathered and presented who would be truly innocent and just whom would be truly guilty in all cases?
What a cold, cruel, compassionless world that would be. It wouldn't only depress me it would scare the hell out of me.

I understand what you are saying ciretom. It just seems like all these twists and turns of extenuating circumstances, the phrasing of laws etc seem to be giant technical caveats in the dispensation of justice ;(

But Tom ...Because of the personal prejudices you described, people are very selective about the people they ultimately bestow compassion upon. There is always talk about context and extenuating circumstances that should be factored into the consideration of a case ... until the alleged offender is someone that the jury might be wired to disapprove of. How often is that offender given the benefit of the doubt in the midst of "context and extenuating curcumstances" ?

But Tom ...Because of the personsl prejudices you described, people are very selective about the people they ultimately bestow compassion on. There is always talk about context and extenuating circumstances that should be factored into the consideration of a case ... until thd slleged offender us someone towards someone the jury might be wired to disapprove of. How often id that offender given the benefit of the doubt in the mudst of "context and extenuating curcumstances" ?

I agree its not a perfect reality but the alternative, I feel, would be worse. Jurors are asked to consider the evidence and testimony presented. They are expected to decide based only on what is presented during trial but personal feelings do matter.

Imagine a world where the testimony and evidence were presented to a computer program to determine guilt or innocence. Instead of fellow people making a determination there is a cold calculating machine determining if you live or die?

The thing I am stressing is that no matter the evidence it is the context and circumstances as related to the situation that has to be considered. A situation that is not programmable because the human being is flexible in motives.

You broke the speed limit trying to get you kid to a hospital with a bleeding hand. Technically, you broke the law. The evidence from the cops radar confirms it. Your city has 911 and ambulance services. Technically, you did not have to drive your kid to the hospital for treatment. The mechanical process of guilt determined by the evidence makes you guilty of the crime you are being charged with. A computer program would find you guilty.
A jury might find you innocent. Perhaps the has a kid in a similar circumstance and they had a bad result from calling an ambulance?
A program isn't going to know this or make such a consideration. Its going to look at the evidence and facts of the case only.

Given the choice of facts or circumstances, I'll take good ole flawed human consideration over fact only verdicts anytime. Thing is tho, people are getting better at gathering evidence and presenting facts for a jury to consider. Jurors are being better screened for biases and limitations of liability are being better explained.

All in all, in my country, justice is served rightly more than injustly. There are exceptions but, the exception is not the rule.

I think many times it is the way laws are written and it is the quality of the lawyers that represent the cases.

Which, in my opinion is not right.

I think those who do not have the resources and depend on court appointed lawyers find themselves in jail much, much more the people who have the ability to hire lawyers.

The court appointed lawyers really don't give a ****, its the bottom rung of the lawyer ladder.

Here in the greater NY area there are major crimes everyday many committed by past offenders and the first question always asked it "what is this guy doing walking the streets"?

So, I think that jail and prison over crowding is another reason many get off or have to do no jail time.

Qualification for guilt...
. I walk around with enough guilt thank you..
Don't we all..

That's a common theme in a lot of movies.
Damning evidence gets thrown out due to some technical circumstance.
Paperwork not correct, procedure not followed, etc.
Trails become a battleground on lawyer against lawyer while they play the "game" with someone's life.

Thing is, in the reality of life, evidence is evidence, no matter the circumstances used to obtain it.

This gun with his prints on it and proof that it was fired and matches the slug taken from the deceased body being determined to be the cause of death will ALWAYS be evidence.

A piece of paper, or lack thereof, does not change the reality of the evidence. It is a fabricated lawyer tactic that serves no justice and only serves to build a lawyers reputation.

Law and the Justice system is a Game that is played with people's lives. If true justice were the motivation, any evidence would be admissable as evidence and then proved to be insignificant to the case.

Like a doctor that just prescribes pills for a patient on a list, the lawyer fights the battles he thinks he can win so he gets reputation.

The patient and the accused are merely pawns of the game. Unless you have the funds to make the doctor or lawyer rich.

There are very few people that operate in the sense of doing the Right thing.

Not really? Saying you forgive yourself and actually forgivibng yourself are two different things.
I carry no guilt.

.. well you're a better man than me..
I carry my guilt like I'm wearing a coat

Sometimes it's not easy doing what you think is the right thing and the guilt that comes along with making the decision is crushing

Where I can see the logic of that it isn't how I exist anymore.
If I do what I think is right, I did what I thought was right.
If someone else thinks it is wrong, that is their take on it, not mine.

I have to also add that given the amount pain and sickness that I endure, it changed my outlook of life and by trying to come to grips with this new reality I needed to find contentment within myself or I knew I would kill myself.
Part of that was letting go of things in my past that I can't change and the other part is to change what I do in the present that don't need to be changed. A matter of preventing the behavior that could make me feel guilty before I do it. It also has a lot to do with how I see the world around me.

Well.. my friend sometimes it's best to get out of your own head and just live life

Roll the dice and hope they come up sevens

Life is in my own head, always has been and always will be.
I have never experienced life as someone else, that is for sure.
While I've pretended to be someone else, it was still my life in my own head.
Oh, also, I'm not one to gamble much. I like assurity.
If its a gamble, I will walk away.
I don't expect anyone to understand me, I know I am weird.
I live just fine with myself.

maybe... But the evidence of Furman and other cops being racist and evidence tampering out weighed any evidence of OJ's crime...

I've been the foreman on three different juries. The evidence is not held to be beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is only beyond any REASONABLE doubt. On two of those juries, I had to deal with a juror who was basing their vote oon their feelings, not on the evidence ans testimony presented.

In one of the cases, the accused was being tried for driving under the influence of alcohol AND for driving with a blood alcohol level in excess of .1 percent, which was the standard before 1990. He had failed the field sobriety test, couldn't walk a straight line. Plus his own testimony pics having his passenger looking back at each freeway entrance ramp for entering vehicles, and his admission of how much he had consumed ans the distancw he intended to drive indicated his intent to drive under the influence. The officer's testimony of the driver's impairment sealed the conviction inn that count.

Based on the testimony of the prosecution's expert witness on the administration of BAC tests ans the effects of alcohol consumption on BAC, plus the testimony of the accused about the quantity and time of consumption, I constructed a graph showing the probable maximum BAC from the time the accused began drinking until the BAC test was administered. It agreed perfectly with the test result showing that the accused had a BAC of .11 percent. We would have convicted on the second count...but there was one flaw in the case. The two evidentiary documents provided by the prosecution showed that the arrest was made at 1:35 a.m., but the BAC test was administered at 2:07 a.m. Again based on all the testimony, the graph I constructed showed that the accused wad highly unlikely to have had a BAC higher than .08 percent. That constituted reasonable doubt. We acquitted on the second count. When I read the verdicts to the court, both the prosecutor and the defense attorney turned and stated with their jaws agape. I met with them in the hallway afterward ans explained why we had returned one guilty verdict ans one not guilty verdict. Ana they both agreed that there were flaws in each of their cases.

SO...why does the criminal justice system sometimes seem to go awry, as it did a few days ago in the case of the murder of Kate Steinle? It can be difficult to say. The defendant will serve no time for the senseless death of a wonderful and innocent young woman in the prime of her life. But in that courtroom and jury room, the evidence must not have eliminated reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors that the defendant had taken any criminal action to kill miss Steinle. And I think that tragedies such as this are why we are exercising our opinions inn this forum.