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.
I wasn't emotionally invested in anything. I watched the trial because my wife tivo'd it every day. The jury's verdict was stupid and lazy. Moronic. If I was DA I would now hesitate before taking an circumstantial case before a jury, making us ALL more vulnerable. It amazes me that Scott PEterson was convicted on his circumstantial case.
If a child is killed and dumped in the woods and it decomposes into a skeleton is it still a murder?
What makes you a simpleton, like the jury in this case, is the childish logical reasoning you constantly display. If someone expresses discontent and outrage over a tax payer funded PUBLIC trial, you call them a vigilante.
Since you know nothing about the case I WILL SET YOU STRAIGHT. SHE WAS TRIED FOR MANSLAUGHTER TOO. The lazy, braindead jury rejected that also.
No, he kept insisting that justice was not served. I later told him that I think she was guilty, I called her despicable. There is nothing I can do at this point. In the context of the debate, my post was appropriate. As I said to another poster, I'm not going to frame my life based on the outcome.
Stupidity combined with arrogance, you are a defense lawyer’s dream juror!
Same way Obama voters do.
Scott Peterson bought a disguise and stashed money in his truck and headed for Mexico. Odd behavior but hardly a reason to convict. /sacasm
Life should be hard for the stupid and the lazy. There's justice.
Proof is proof.
I hope that juries make their decisions based on the proof of the crime presented by the prosecution.
Scott Peterson got convicted with no DIRECT evidence that he killed his wife. He is on death row because he went fishing on Christmas eve and he wanted to take an unscheduled trip to Mexico. The jury system is flawed and was unjust in the FL v., Anthony trial. We all lose when this happens. This doesn’t make me a vigilante.
I’m not big on the whole jury selection process (picking jurors based on their answers to various questions) but this really should be a no brainer. Can’t make jugdements on other people? Ok, next!
Bingo!
And of course I didn’t say I did.
No doubt the jury gets stacked by attorneys favorable to their side of the equation. IMO they should have no say who is selected. But by what other means could this be done is the question. Either way there needs to be reforms of how this is done.
You may be right. But I’ve heard other legal experts (who aren’t defense attorneys —and sorry, I discount them because for some odd reason they always seem to be on the defense side, go figure!) say otherwise. Look I’m not a lawyer. And obviously I am tainted by what I have heard for the last 3 years, especially since I do live in FL and recall this case from the moment we all knew this child went missing. It’s difficult to recall what they knew and what we all have heard over the last 3 years.
However, this does not seem to be as cut and dried as you just set it out. So, you and I can agree to disagree. And I firmly believe the system is set up to make it easier to confound the issue, especially in this day and age of CSI. And when I hear jurors say things like “Beyond a shadow of a doubt” etc, I’m sorry but I can’t help but believe they were overly swayed by Baez and for some reason either didn’t like the Prosecutor or found the men in Casey’s life less compelling. And how is that any better than convicting her because she is a party girl who isn’t very likable? These are the things about this trial that leave me troubled.
I know a system devised by man will be imperfect. But I expect us to look at it with thoughtfulness and always wonder if some things need improvement. I don’t mean the entire system, don’s go there. But, is the jury selection system a problem? Are juries orders clear? Is it really essential that we televise these trials as they happen or does it change the outcome?
Sorry this is so long. I’ll stop. :)
LOL probably 3rd grade now.. ;)
That sounds plausible to me too.
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.