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.
Thank you.
There are a number of ways to go negative on this verdict, and I liked you take on it.
Two Jurors made it clear during the selection phase that they did not believe they should judge other people. That this should be left to God. So therefore two had already determined, before the trial even started or the doors closed for dileration, that they would not be voting guilty.
MAkes you wonder how they determine who they pick as friends... or marriage partners...or who their kids acquaint themselves with, if they make no judgements of other people.
Well they sure didn't question any of it...zip zero was questioned or asked to be seen while in diliberation..and there was over 300 pieces of it. That in itself is stunning!
I don’t see how the jury is not supposed to discuss the case, especially a sequestered jury. There they are basically locked up with each other with the news made available to them heavily censored, what exactly do they have available to discuss?
All that is great for showing she clearly did something wrong. But it doesn’t prove a premeditated deliberate act of murder.
All the effort I’ve seen to trash anybody the target is the jury, not the TV audience that disagrees with them. There’s nothing trashing in that sentence you keep quoting. It doesn’t say anything bad about anybody, it’s just pointing out that the TV audience and the jury have 2 different sets of information. The other category presented is the jury. It’s a simple comparison and contrast sentence, there’s the TV audience and the jury, and then it lists the information the TV audience has which was specifically forbidden the jury.
Sorry but it’s all in your head. There’s not a word in that sentence that says only simpletons wouldn’t agree with the verdict. You’re just plain being paranoid on that front, inserting something that’s not there.
She was acquitted of all the charges that had her directly and deliberately harming the kid. Because there wasn’t evidence of that the things that happened to the kid were done BY her. That was the big problem with the case. There’s lots of evidence that somebody did bad things to the kid, there’s lots of evidence that Casey hid evidence, which is good for an inference that she’s probably the one who did the bad things. But “inference” and “probably” are not the kind of words that rise beyond a reasonable doubt.
The problem is you’re looking at a difference set of information. The jury didn’t get all the stuff the judge kept out, it didn’t get all the guessing by legal “experts”. 90% of the stuff you’ve read about the trial they didn’t hear. But what they DID get to hear was a prosecuting attorney admit they didn’t now how she died, when she died, and imply they were really sure who killed her other than it being somebody in the house.
Thanks for the response.
Why post that descriptive sentence in the article if not to frame the people who disagree with the verdict and the jury?
What would be the point of placing that information up front, if not to influence people with the content?
It was unnecessary if not to frame the dissenters in some manner. You can’t possibly think those comments were flattering to the public who disagreed.
I know you’re convinced I’m being paranoid, but by dismissing any insult there, you’re saying that was placed in the article for no reason whatsoever.
Wordsmiths don’t do that.
Yes I know. You don't know what it could have possibly been that she might have done wrong.
I support you in that belief. I don't agree with it, but I do believe that is your take on it.
It's not my take on it.
I didn’t say they ignored evidence. I said they did not request any of the 300 pieces of evidence while in diliberation...which to me was stunning.
Because it’s actually useful stuff to keep in mind. There’s a lot of folks saying the jury must be idiots to acquit, but those folks saying that have a whole different pile of information to work with. It frames the situation, it points out the probable source of the large difference in opinion of the TV audience and the jury. It’s actually a valid and informative sentence. I know we’re not used to the media doing that, but it happens sometimes.
Yes, and thus that is where I see the greatest flaw in the system. How to determine a jury should be "reformed"...the sooner the better. I understand it wasn't until Tuesday about noon when those who were holding her guilty began to weaken....whatever happened to bring that about it took less then three hours after for all six to fold. Makes one wonder who was leading that charge to find Casey not guilty. There is ALWAYS a leader.
Remember there’s a large gap between belief and a jury vote. I believe Casey did it, and deliberately, but I know there isn’t proof beyond a reasonable doubt of that.
I took a few Criminal Law classes in the 70s and at that time they said lawyers needed to speak to the jury as if they all had about a 5th grade education in order to be sure they weren’t talking over their heads. Not sure if that is the case now or if the grade level has changed.
I think jury pools are too small for them to be as picky as they once were. I was supposed to testify in a criminal trial a couple of weeks ago and it was declared a mistrial because there were not enough jurors to try the case! Many do not even bother to show up, and those that do have all sorts of reasons they can’t serve. I was on jury duty a few years ago and a deputy sheriff showed up in uniform and tried to get the clerk to dismiss him so he wouldn’t have to wait around. The clerk told him being in law enforcement didn’t mean he wouldn’t be put on a jury any more so he didn’t just get excused.
They used to say jurors are those that are too dumb to get out of jury duty. If we want justice we have to be willing to do our part and many aren’t.
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.