Posted on 07/10/2011 8:46:37 AM PDT by Kaslin
Casey Anthony's acquittal of the killing of her precious child, Caylee, has shocked the nation. Many who watched the trial on TV – and who were not constrained from taking into account inadmissible evidence, the punditry of various talking heads, or the overwhelming public sentiment against Ms. Anthony – have been critical of the jury's verdict. Among those most vehement in their condemnation of the jury are TV notables Bill O'Reilly and Nancy Grace. Their indignation is shared by those who feel the verdict represented a gross miscarriage of justice.
Cases like this call the value of trial by jury into question for some. But critics should take some important points into consideration: In American jurisprudence, an accused wrongdoer is presumed innocent. The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. The jury is not permitted to consider evidence that doesn't reach a certain threshold of reliability and they aren't permitted to take into account matters outside the evidence. They aren't entitled to discuss the case among themselves, or even form an opinion about the case, until all the evidence is in. They can't discuss the case with anyone other than their fellow jurors, and if any reasonable doubt exists about the crime(s) charged, they cannot convict. It is not enough for the jury to "know" that the accused is guilty as charged. The charges must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Most freedom loving people agree that these are important safeguards which must be met before one accused of a crime can be deprived of their life or liberty.
Trial by jury is not a recent phenomenon. It dates back over a thousand years, and its use has been documented in a variety of civilizations. The right to trial by jury has been particularly prominent in the American system of law and justice. When the Founders enumerated their grievances in the Declaration of Independence, King George's denial to the colonists of the right to trial by jury was in the forefront of their complaints. George Mason famously refused to sign the Constitution unless the right to trial by jury was made explicit. Thomas Jefferson made clear the value he placed on juries when he said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution." Its importance is highlighted by the fact that the right to trial by jury is expressly referenced in not one, but three of the amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights.
As Americans, we tend to take the right to trial by jury for granted; but it should not difficult to imagine the horror of living in a society in which the State possesses absolute power. Millions of people around the world live in societies that don't allow for trial by jury. When they are accused of wrongdoing, they aren't afforded an opportunity to defend themselves. No jury of their peers decides their guilt or innocence. Their lives and freedom are subject to the whims of those who hold power. Their tribunals – if they exist at all – are mere kangaroo courts which serve only as an eye wash. "Verdict first, trial later" is their modus operandi. Even here in America there was a time when perverted justice prevailed, when the word of a single white man could spell death for a politically and legally powerless African American.
This is why the right to trial by jury is essential.
Our Founding Fathers recognized that the collective judgment of ordinary people, while not perfect, is the most reliable, most just method of resolving conflicts in America's courtrooms. Does the jury system and its protections mean that sometimes the guilty will go free? The answer is yes. Alan Dershowitz addressed this in a recent article discussing the Casey Anthony verdict:
"For thousands of years, Western society has insisted that it is better for 10 guilty defendants to go free than for one innocent defendant to be wrongly convicted. This daunting standard finds its roots in the biblical story of Abraham's argument with God about the sinners of Sodom. Abraham admonishes God for planning to sweep away the innocent along with the guilty and asks Him whether it would be right to condemn the sinners of Sodom if there were 10 or more righteous people among them. God agrees and reassures Abraham that he would spare the city if there were 10 righteous. From this compelling account, the legal standard has emerged."
A justice system that allows for the possibility of the guilty going free is undoubtedly unpalatable for those who wish to see Caylee Anthony's death avenged, but it is a standard that recognizes and upholds the notion that life and liberty should not be deprived without due process of law. It's not a perfect system, but none better has yet been devised by man.
Very good article and I suspect that you will be getting attacked by those who became emotionally invested in this young womans’ guilt. Knowing that someone is guilty and proving it are two vastly different things.
There seems to be a misconception that many in the media are operating under. The premise is, you have had to listen to the talking heads and consider evident not presented to the jury to come to a conclusion the jury was wrong.
That really angers me. The implication is that outside the jury, everyone is a simpleton, unable to think or reason for themselves.
Okay media players, just where do the members of the jury come from? Oh yes from that pool of simpletons you keep denigrating.
What a bunch of collective dumb f--ks we have in our media these days.
it is a standard that recognizes and upholds the notion that life and liberty should not be deprived without due process of law.
Oh, if only, this standard applied to preborn, helpless babies in their mother’s womb. If only they could have their day in court!
Yes, and proving it to the jury was a tall order.
Because she was such a neglectful mother, we know that she had something to do with her daughter’s death. The whole family dynamic in her family is bizarre. But proving anything to a jury was something the prosecution wasn’t able to do.
The Biblical standard for the Death Penalty was "two eyewitnesses." They didn't have videotapes and DNA, but they knew about "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Prosecutor's error, going for Murder One. I hate it, but there it is.
The jury system is really the only thing that stands between us and the utmost, crushing tyranny. Surely in these darkening days of the early 21st Century we can see that.
I have no problem with “trial by jury”, and with accepting the Anthony verdict, for that matter. But one would be kinda brain-numb to look at situations like this and wonder what might be done to make the system better. (Better in the sense of having fewer cases where the guilty go free at the cost of the higher goal of not convicting the innocent).
One thing that occurs to me is how crimes are charged. I don’t know how, but it seems that in the interest of justice for ALL (including the victim) that if evidence does not support a conviction on the highest count (i.e. 1st deg. murder) but does support conviction on a lesser charge, that should be what happens. I don’t disagree with the ban on “double jeopardy”, but my understanding is, Casey cannot now be charge with much of anything stemming from the “same facts”, and that does not seem right.
My attitude is to get over it. Yes, I thought she was guilty, but the post acquittal fallout is getting ridiculous. Jurors not wanting their names published due to the risk of becoming a target. Death threats. Vigilante justice.
Get over it people. Really.
TV notables Bill O'Reilly and Nancy Grace.
I find them both insufferable. She asks for a report, then shoots the messenger.
Another shining moment was when she complained about people cashing in on "blood money". What do you think you have been doing for the last three years Nancy?
No one will ever be charged with the child’s death. Regardless of how she died, you and everyone else know her mother and grandparents know what happened.
Yes, the system works and that’s a good thing. But the fact that no one will be help accountable in this life for her death rankles.
Not guilty and innocent are two very different things.
Just kidding. Agreeing with Dershowitz had to involve some pain. Ouch! (g)
Never mind that the poor child put duct tape over her mouth, climbed into three bags and dumped herself into a swamp.
Justice was served, right?
I stated that I believed she was guilty. If you feel so strongly, go exact some vigilante justice yourself. I'm not going to prison for this person. You want to? Have at it.
I just hope this smirking, in your face sociopath becomes a pariah like OJ. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least to see her walk out of jail and flip the nation the bird.
i agree. good article, making valid points.
however, a corrupted jury system, serves no one,
but lawyers.
just as our Founder Father’s certainly wanted INFORMED voters.
not people living for generations on government handouts, who need the “D” next to the name, to know who to vote for.
...the Jury system, deliberately gets rid of the most intelligent and knowledgeable jurors. ...if you follow news, you’re gone. if you even know what “jury nullification” means, you’re gone. etc.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Weather you agree or disagree, the jury said not guilty.
I would rather see a guilty person go free then convict an innocent person.
That said, she had better not, speed, run a red light, or J-walk.
Very, very interesting.
When your dog is missing you look for it for a month, when your child is missing you call 9-11 immediately.
To this day I remember my son wandering off in the Grocery store, he hid under a vegetable cart. Those minutes seemed like hours, not being able to breath, the sheer panic I felt. My knees literally buckled when we found him. And that Biotch is in a bar! The jury could not even muster up the stomach to find her negligent???? Something is wrong there!
This problem goes beyond juries; it is prevalent in every aspect of life. Our Constitutional Republic depends on a well-informed, educated populace. It is the lifeblood.
Communism depends on dumbed-down subjects; which is what we have now. Point well taken.
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.