> It's crazy to me that so much of the American "justice" relies on juries where they are free to ignore any scientific evidence and just vote the way that seems right to them.
That's a feature of the system. If we had perfect information and judgement we wouldn't even need courts in the first place. It's also the case that the law itself can be unjust, should it be blindly applied, or is it good that the jury can declare someone not guilty anyways?
> At the end it's a matter of which side can build a more passionate argument to sway the juries
Right. So it's interesting that the prosecution gets a regular plus a "rebuttal" closing argument that the defense never gets. It's interesting the way courtrooms are laid out. It's interesting that the state in many circumstances cannot supply exculpatory testimony on your behalf, even if they have it.
My point being, there are so many more worthy things to consider before presuming juries themselves are the problem. Those who have made these arrangements are happy that you see it this way, though.
> rather than what evidence is actually presented and its rational meaning.
Do you have some evidence that this occurred in this case? We are examining it more than 20 years after the fact. At the time the jury thought it had the best explanation, and it might have even been "common knowledge." I certainly remember the "shaken baby" period in the zeitgeist of the time.
> So yeah of course the American judicial system is not willing to review past convictions based on scientific discoveries
Quite the contrary. His first execution was halted and he was granted review under a Texas law commonly called the "junk science law." He quite literally got this exact review.
All that being said capital punishment is amoral and especially irreconcilable with all the above facts. In no sense am I defending it, just our system of jury trials.