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.
Yup. There was a 'Watchtower' pamphlet left on my doorstep yesterday. When I left my house, I saw several Jehovahs Witnesses canvasing the neighborhood. No one could 'prove' it was they who left it on my doorstep. Gee, for all I know, it could have been my Baptist neighbor, right?
Casey was offered a 'plea deal' until the remains were found. Why don't you do some homework and stop posting junk comments that show you are totally clueless as to what literally is KNOWN.
She was offered a plea several times.
I repeat, there was no evidence presented that Casey duct taped Caylee mouths shut, wrapped her in a garbage bag and dumped her in a swamp.
All 12 jurors voted not guilty. I think all three alternate jurors would have voted the same way.
What was the deal?
She refused all plea bargains.
Would that level of evidence allow you to convict someone of murder?
Then she went along with it. Your child does not go missing and you don’t report for a month!!!
Except that was what the killer must have done, and there was lots of evidence that Casey was the killer. You confuse lack of forensic evidence with a direct tie to one person with lack of evidence. Cases do not have to be decided on scientific evidence.
She got lucky.
Her lawyers got a great jury for her.
In Federal Court, she would have been found guilty in a two day trial.
One can disagree with the verdict like i do, question the need for the Griffin rule, and wonder what jackasses her attorneys and family are, how utterly stupid Jennifer Ford (juror)was.
And not be calling for dismantling the jury system and going for military tribunals.
If you follow where we have gone since Founders, we have implemented more and more layers to protect the accused and make it harder for the prosecution than it was in the Founder's day....just see Warren court for starters
So maybe the same folks lecturing people like me to shut up about this awful verdict and goofy jury should look at that evolutiuon when they toss out the canard that this is a trial with the constitution in balance.
(not the thread purveyor per se)
Maybe 10 (+/-), on condition she showed them where the body was. After the body was found, that was taken off the table and the next one was not so lenient.
I did read a complaint from her which stated (among other things) Cheney Mason was angry because she refused a plea. The link is posted on one of the trial threads.
I'm not defending Casey. I am defending our jury system, the right to be presumed innocent ...
I was very surprised by the verdict. I expected a conviction.
I'm glad to hear that...I was getting worried. I will pigeonhole this with OJ and that bitch who drowned her kids in Texas along with plenty more I could recall if I tried
Bad verdicts or outcomes...just worse in this case given the victim.
There are times when the accused is so obviously guilty strictly based on circumstantial evidence and apart from hard evidence that it defies logic to not find the defendant guilty of something. Casey Anthony is one. OJ Simpson is another. Whatever happened to common sense?
I'm tired of hearing about people who are "emotional" and judging the outcome with emotions. That's nonsense. One doesn't have to be "emotional" to look at the situation and come to a logical conclusion. People who can't see that Casey Anthony is guilty has some intellectual problems. How's that?
We no longer have justice in this country. We have whatever the whim of the people is today.
Using your and the jury’s threshhold of proof, no circumstantial evidence could ever convict. A defense theory that aliens were the culprits and ‘staged’ the scene would yield hours of testimony by experts debating the existence of extraterrestrials and their potential for malevolence.
Wow, I'm sorry I haven't lived this case for the past few years. I have been corrected by several other freepers and promised not to mis-type (?) about the "plea bargain" again.
So can I post some more?
I honestly have no idea how I would have voted. I did not sit on the jury panel and listen to weeks of evidence and testimony put on by the Prosecution and the Defense.
I do know that 12+ Jurors thought she was Not Guilty.
Heh heh...
I will pigeonhole this with OJ and that bitch who drowned her kids in Texas along with plenty more I could recall if I tried
Exactly. What else can I do?
The jury was NOT paying attention to the evidence. The evidence NOT challenged or refuted demonstrated that child was in the custody of CASEY ANTHONY when 'zanny' the 'nanny' took her at some park. I do NOT give a ....... what the jury says.
The accidental drowning scenario was about as believable as aliens abducting Caylee.
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.