Maybe that's just stating the obvious. I know that if I were on a jury, I would have to be darn sure about guilt to convict; precisely because I am so loath to see someone wrongly convicted and punished. I weight that concern much more than I do a wrongful acquittal, and perhaps more so than most.

But I think it would be my duty on a jury to try and consider both perspectives to ensure that I didn't stretch the concept of "reasonable" beyond its fair limits. I would hope that others who consider things primarily from the perspective of concern for a wronful acquittal would similarly challenge themselves in the other direction. I have no information whatsoever whether jurors in general do examine both perspectives, nor if they operate from primarly one perspective or the other.

The process would be even more difficult, and agonizing, when it's not a question of whether the right party is on trial, but instead a question of intent or other difficult to determine mens rea.

How would I feel if I was part of what proved to be a wrongful conviction? Can't say with certainty of course, but I expect I would feel tremendous remorse and compassion. Whether I felt guilt per se would be a matter of how I felt I performed my duty based on what was presented to me. But if I learned after the fact that there was some sort of prosecutorial misconduct or grossly inadequate defense, I'd feel angry beyond words. Or if I learned that the primary reason for a wrongful conviction was reasonable-at-the-time blind faith in something like eye witness testimony, I would want that steps are being taken to ensure that the degree of reliability of eye witness testimony or such, even from a credible witness, is considered by the court and presented to juries.

not set

I'd rather have a chocolate milkshake :)

And as for the fire, I don't know, just the possibilities.