If the jury system was designed to get convictions then yes that would make sense, however it is really designed to limit government power. There is a long past of governments who use the legal system to intimidate and oppress people and juries are supposed to act as the finders of fact to midigate the conflict of interest of having the government act as prosecutor and judge.
There really are people who cannot cope with some kinds of visual stimuli.
This comes up often regarding pictures of dead people, from war zones, genocide areas, riots, the situation in Syria, etc. Some people can look at such a photo and say, “Hm. A deader. So it goes.” Others throw up, faint, have panic attacks, etc.
Same with child porn. You’re lucky enough to have a kind of toughness, an ability to keep the horror from being emotionally overpowering. But not everyone is.
(I can’t watch horror movies, of the modern “splatter” variety. I know it’s all just actors and special effects, but I can’t cope. I start having panic reactions. You wouldn’t have wanted me on, say, the O.J. Simpson jury.)
Same thought I had when I read that statement, specially with the thing about never talking about his war experiences either and the matter of not being able to talk. That he’s is carrying with him something heavy and painful and this just hit the right (wrong) buttons.
Thinking of it, truth is I have no idea what my own tolerance for heinous evidence would be if acually faced with it. I’ve seen some pretty twisted shyte in my time but I know the creativity of human depravity seems bound only by the laws of physics.
Quick and idle question. Why is it not ok to say “The defendant is charged with possessing 140 child porn photo’s, and here is a representative sample of 14 of them”, but if you are charged with possession of 140 kilos of cocaine, the lab doesn’t have to test all of it? Has a defense attorney ever tried to argue that the parts tested by the lab were actually coke, the rest was baking soda?
Because the law is grotesquely biased and unfair? Every one of those images needs to be confirmed, as should every last ounce of cocaine be tested.
Also the prosecution may seek “140 counts of CP” meaning 140 distinct individual instances so as to extract a plea by threatening to pile up concurrent/consecutive sentences.
A large bag of powder has a kind of homogeneity that a collection of photos does not.
Also, the question we’re talking about is 140 separate charges of possession. If the defendant were under only a single charge of possession, then, certainly, only one photo would be required. 14 would be more than sufficient to warrant conviction.
When a person is charged with possession of cocaine, there isn’t a separate legal charge lodged for each pound in the bag. If there were, then you would have a valid point.