Posted on 07/06/2011 6:32:41 AM PDT by Kaslin
Oh, absolutely. Because one jury believed a prosecutor hadn’t proved a case beyond a reasonable doubt, we should replace trial by jury with trial by Ben Shapiro, the Philosopher-King. That’ll assure justice for all.
the jury was correct.
BINGO!
No blame for the prosecution? It’s all the jury’s fault for being stupid.
First of all, based upon the technical aspects of the case, the jury made the correct decision - even though we all know “in our gut” that Casey Anthony is a guilty little tramp. However, juries aren’t supposed to make decisions based on “their guts,” but on the actual facts of the case. The prosecution made a terrible case.
To the extent that the jury system needs revamping, it is in the direction of giving juries greater leeway to even override unjust laws (i.e. jury nullification), if necessary, not making juries more subservient to judges and prosecutors.
Agreed. If the prosecution cannot even establish how Caylee died, there is really no proof a crime was committed.
The “Casey was abused” and the “she drowned in the pool” fairy tales should have NEVER been introduced....anywhere....at any time. There was absolutely no truthful evidence to back it up.
Another knee-jerk reaction!
</sarcasm>
I think a better solution to the problem is to empanel juries and THEN randomly assign them to cases. That way the shysters can’t cherry pick the jurors for a particular case. They would be more representative of the actual community then the ones we get now in these high profile cases.
Did they ever prove how Scitt Peterson’s wife died??
I’ve got to think that any prosecutor who cannot convince 12 stupid and gullible idiots, is too incompetent to work in the service of the people.
Between ubama telling us what is and isn’t Constitutional and all these folks that know this case better than the jury that actually heard the evidence, we ought to just do away with the judicial system altogether. Think of the money we could save.
Perhaps we should abolish the affirmative action program in the OPD and the career civil servants in the DA’s office.
Agreed - The jury was correct. The prosecution did a terrible job both in selecting the charges and in prosecuting the case. There simply wasn’t enough evidence to convict: e.g. how does one prove premeditated murder when one cannot even establish cause of death?
Don’t get sucked into the media sensationalism machine. Only fools think it is just to allow prosecution to level whatever dire charges they think will gather the most public attention, and once public outrage is high over the “seriousness of the charges,” excuse the prosecution from actually proving it. That way lies tyranny.
I have come to the conclusion that the whole problem here was the interpretation of the word “reasonable”.
Any doubt introduced that the mother did not kill this little girl was not reasonable.
Maybe we should have law based on religion?
What law do you want to be judged by is the real question
Unfortunately I have to agree.
I know she’s guilty in my gut but I could never prove it.
How well do you know these jurors?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.