Posted on 07/06/2011 6:32:41 AM PDT by Kaslin
On Tuesday, a Florida jury found Casey Anthony not guilty of first-degree murder in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee Marie.
As so often happens in high profile cases, the jury was wrong.
Casey clearly murdered her daughter. Her mom, Cindy, reported that Caylee was missing on July 15, 2008. Casey's cover story was unbelievably ridiculous. When Casey's mom, Cindy, confronted Casey at Casey's boyfriend's apartment, Casey actually claimed that a random baby sitter nobody had ever met had taken Caylee away over a month beforehand.
Cindy called the cops, informing them, "I found my daughter's car today. And it smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car." Sure enough, cadaver dogs identified the trunk of Casey's car as a dead body location, and scientists confirmed that a body had decomposed back there. A few months after a jury indicted Casey, police found Caylee's corpse in the woods near Casey's home, duct tape on her head.
The defense did a Johnny Cochrane routine -- they blamed everybody within a 10 mile radius of the murder for the murder. Defense attorney Jose Baez suggested that Casey's dad, George, had sexually abused her during her childhood, without any evidence whatsoever. Baez also claimed that Caylee had drowned in the pool while George was at home, and that George had been involved in dumping the body.
There was no evidence to any of this. It was pure conjecture, a sociopathic response to being caught red-handed. And Casey Anthony is a sociopath: outwardly charming, pathologically lying, indecently self-centered, lacking in shame or guilt, promiscuous, exploitative and irresponsible, and willing to hurt anyone and everyone in order to get her way.
So, why did the jury acquit her? Because the jury system, as currently run, is stupid.
Yes, jury trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution (although only with regard to federal cases). It was originally considered a hallmark of civilized criminal justice because citizens did not want to be subjected to government inquisitions, with the court stacked against them. Juries were supposed to be a bulwark against governmental encroachment.
Nowadays, juries have become a hallmark of our heavily bureaucratized system. Those who have day jobs are eager to avoid serving on juries, mainly because the convoluted rules of procedure and evidence have turned summary trials into week-long events. By and large, only the least offensive -- and not coincidentally, the dumbest -- tend to be selected for juries. As the aphorism goes, the problem with juries is that they are generally composed of the 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
The phrase "show trial" now means something different -- it means a trial that is a show. That's precisely what O.J. and Casey Anthony were about. Every juror expects to see Sam Waterston get up and deliver opening remarks, and damned if the court system won't do its best to provide that entertainment. The provision of the Constitution that requires a public trial is now used to ensure that trials become media circuses.
Should we embrace the European inquisitorial system, in which judges ask the questions and come up with the decisions? Should we hire professional jurors?
The answer doesn't lie in abolishing the jury system utterly, but in revamping it completely.
The rationale behind juries is still important, particularly with regard to politically-oriented trials: We don't want judges paid by government to have full authority to condemn those of different political persuasions. And the rationale behind a public trial is also still relevant -- we don't want Star Chambers or clandestine hearings. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
By the same token, however, our current jury system is broken beyond repair. If we are truly to restore justice to our system of justice, we must pursue the best and brightest for service, make it easier for them to serve, make the rules of evidence and procedure more efficient, and allow justice to run more smoothly. Most Americans would be willing to serve on a jury for a day. Few would be willing to do so for a week and even fewer for a month. We need more day-long trials and less month-long trials. We need more justice and less showmanship.
Caylee Anthony, sadly, wasn't just the victim of her mother here. She was the victim of a system that did not mete out justice to her murderer. There will be many more cases like Caylee Anthony until we do something to solve this mess.
“Should We Abolish the Jury System?”
For the children. What a bunch of putzes for wanting to take us further down the road to a judicial dictatorship.
Let’s convict another one, it will look good when we’re up for reelection.
THEY DIDN’T PROVE THEIR CASE. END. FINI.
First thing we need to do is to revamp jury selection.
Pick jurors at random, and don’t give either side any say in who is chosen.
Because the prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the child was murdered, with malice and forethought or otherwise. The jury did what juries are supposed to do.
If the prosecutor had tried the case on a lesser charge, the jury might have found the defendent guilty.
In lieu of evidence that there was a murder committed, and not just a host of bad choices following an accidental or negligent death, the jury had no choice but to acquit.
I agree. I was on the panel for a major murder case in San Antonio years ago, and the prosecutor actually said they wanted an impartial jury. I said, "Are you joking, or do you think I'm an idiot? You want a jury that's on your side, and he (the public defender) wants a jury that's on his side. That's the only reason we're going through all this nonsense instead of drawing straws."
The judge cracked up. Later, he told me it had been a real pleasure having me in his courtroom, and I was to tell the clerk I was "excused for cause."
so you did not spew enough anti constitution crap on the other thread? Take your anti constitution line of complete garbage and go away...this is a constitutional website, go else where and spew your friggin garbage pal...
The fact is the prosecution couldn’t even prove that a murder took place. What if it was an accident that the dumb bimbo tried to cover up?
how can an attorney of note make such a statement. What has happened to the legal profession? Do they want to throw out “reasonable doubt? Do they want to convict on supposition or opinion?”
I hate the way the media tries these cases on their own and reacts in such an ugly manner when the actual verdict shows the error of their ways.
McKinley's assassin was tried, convicted and executed in just a little over 6 weeks from September 14.
Today it takes 3 years just to bring an obviously guilty mother to trial for the murder of her daughter. If the mother had been found guilty and sentenced to death, it would have taken another 20 to 30 years to carry out the sentence if in fact it was ever carried out.
What happened over the last 110 years to make our justice system so dysfunctional? Who did this to us?
Judicial rule #1, young, good looking chicks don't get convicted unless the evidence is overwelming. If there is even the slightest sliver of wiggle room they walk and even in the cases were they do get convicted, their sentences are usually very mild.
Judicial rule #2, if you want a ton of media attention, make sure you are a young, good looking caucasian chick from an upper middle class family when you committ some sort of heinous crime. If this had been Latisha Anthony from the projects in Chicago who's daughter Shoshawna died in identical circumstance, it would have been lucky to make the local paper.
> 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.
Well said, Tax Chick.
Our system ain’t perfect, but it’s WAY better than the alternative.
A better solution is to have a better educated, better informed public, but that won’t happen as long as the Left has anything to say about it.
Holy cow. I know beyond a reasonable doubt that this author’s eyes are brown.
Sixth Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
The only qualification is for an impartial jury. I guess the voyeur dear /s is a way of ensuring the jury is impartial to the accused - - not the attorney.
I'd like to see the statistics on this, because I doubt it. Obviously the plural of anecdote is not data, still I've known quite a few people who've served on juries and they're definitely not the dumbest people I know.
I’ve been called to jury duty 3 times, and all the cases were settled out of court.
I was looking forward to the process.
The constitution is what is causing this miscarriage of justice. Pal. Those old rights are standing in the way of getting Casey. There are a lot of Freepers who can see clearly. I even saw on TV she is guilty. Why should some hick jury get to decide?
I’ve had discussions with a lib-in-law about where we should err, though I think the bottom line is that it is a false dichotomy.
You don’t have to let 100 guilty people go in order to avoid convicting one innocent person. I do believe, however, that we should do all we can to make sure that those who are guilty of heinous crimes are not set free on some technicality. These types are likely to harm a lot of people in the future.
In essence, my argument to my libinlaw was that if he intended to let 100 guilty people go in order to avoid convicting one innocent person, he’s willing to allow the harm and/or death of all the innocent future victims of those 100 guilty he would let go for the freedom of the one falsely accused.
ohhh yes jury duty.
As you sit there as a defendant accused of something. Would you like to know if the people that are about to judge are all Freepers?
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.