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.
YOU are 'sorry'???? s n i c k e r .... you make bold statements about facts you are clueless about, and NOW you are 'sorry' you have NOT lived this case.... CASEY ANTHONY 'confessed' what happened to this child... and the jury is going to make a profit offffff a murdered little two + year old.... YEAH baby the system worked.
Trial by jury sounds good in theory. Except in reality, when actual people are put in there, remember these idiots are selected from the same group of dumbasses who voted O’shithead into office.
Read post#55.
“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.”
You are partially missing the point. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of a jury trial. However, the manner of determining jurors is not specified. I would prefer professional jurors or substantial changes to the manner of selecting jurors. The current manner of selecting jurors is an exercise in sampling bias. The entire point of the selection procedure is to select jurors who seem predisposed to a certain view point or at least exclude jurors who seem predisposed to the other side’s view point.
I object to non professional jury system because it is tantamount to forced labor, a violation of property rights. We have a military draft that is non voluntary but the military draft is only for national emergencies (unless the rats manage to change the law). I strongly object to being forced to serve on a jury especially a civil jury. The litigants in civil cases should bear the true cost of a jury trial.
Contrary to popular misconception, juror selection in a trial is not a random process. The jury pool is close to a random process but many individuals opt out and find ways to avoid serving. The voir dire process is an exercise in sampling bias.
Beyond the bias in jury selection, juries can be ignorant about weighing evidence. I would not have voted for acquital in the Anthony case. The evidence was powerful about her guilt. Juries get confused about collective weight of the evidence by design as defense attorneys try to inject confusion and clouded judgment. Juries now expect powerful physical evidence of guilt. Criminals try to destroy physical evidence so it is often difficult to obtain physical evidence.
In the Anthony case, the jury was mistaken that the prosecuter needed to determine the cause of death. There was no evidence of accidental death and plenty of evidence that Anthony caused the death. The jury was also confused about the alternative theories of the crime. There was no evidence of involvement of other family members. Even if other family members were involved, Casey was still responsible.
Speaking of jury selection, a female lawyer in Houston was interviewed on the nightly news. She said she was one of a group of people who were hired to select the jury. She said she was proud of the work that she had done. Don’t remember if she actually said she liked the juries decision but I got the impression that she did.
I actually think we need a change of terminology. Not proven is much better. Not guilty really does mean the same thing as innocent, at least in most people’s minds. Not proven is a different thing.
I wish what trials like this would do (and I’m not really for showing the proceedings on tv as they happen—I think there must be a better way than the circuses we have now) is to get the public to clamor for some changes in things like the way juries are selected. Is it REALLY the best idea to let the lawyers have such a hand in choosing jurors? Was this really what the original system had in mind? I somehow don’t think so.
When I see the system at work, truth and justice and fairness are never the words that spring to my mind. But the lawyers sure seem to like the status quo...
I hear people say that, and yet, a guilty person going free does in no way have a bit of bearing on the whether an innocent person will be convicted. There’s not a sort of Karma at work here. This was simply a difficult case.
I agree. The way juries are selected is the problem. Perhaps judges should select the jurors.
I also keep hearing (and reading) people say, “I can’t judge other people”. Well, if you can’t judge other people, can you serve on a jury?
One could argue that that poor, unfortunate little tyke is probably better off where she is now. Can you imagine growing up in that psychotic, deranged family?
I have a question. I watched a lot of the last day, but not all of it. Are the jury instructions given in the jury room away from the cameras? Is that something we would not have seen (I didn’t see anything like that). I am curious what they were told in that regard because I did hear at least one (but I think 2) talk about “beyond a shadow of a doubt” which is NOT the burden of proof.
You are exactly right!
Fact: Child is missing for 30 days, not reported, Mom parties instead.
Fact: Mother a lying thief
Fact: Mother lies to LEO sends them on a wild goose chase
Fact: Last known person with child is Mom
Fact: Body found in a bag, duct taped and decomposed in a swamp
No evidence whatsoever:
Child molestation
Accidental drowning
Brother is father
Tis a puzzlement.
They also had the option of aggravated child abuse or aggravated manslaughter. I’m not sure what the possible punishment for those were, but they did not find her guilty of those either. Supposedly she was offered a plea deal and rejected it (but that was never confirmed, so who knows if that is true).
Coincidence?
1. Zanny the Nanny 4 up, 1 down
A fictitious babysitter, created by amoral, trashy, and promiscuous single mothers in order to deflect blame for poor parenting. “Zanny”, actually is the street name for a drug called Alprazolam.
I was so bombed, high, and too busy having sex! It sure is a good thing Zanny the Nanny was watching my child!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Zanny%20the%20Nanny
One thing I have noticed, in my reading around the internet and twitter, is that people seem more willing to believe a man must have been involved. It makes me wonder if Casey were a father if she would have been convicted. It also makes me think that attorneys should be held accountable in some way for bringing innocent people into trails with no proof of any sort when they are muddying the waters as Baez did. Casey’s father and brother will forever be suspect now, and they may well have had nothing to do with this, and any incest/child sexual abuse. But a lot of people now think they are pedophiles or worse.
Approximately 70% of people who were polled across the nation disagree with the Anthony trial verdict.
Some say this was a verdict that snowballed out of control. Is that reasonable? How does that even pass muster at all?
How in the world can a jury render a verdict in a case as complex as this in less than eleven hours, before ever asking to examine the evidence that was on display in the court room, it’s bizarre…
Well the answer is actually relatively simple. They hardly ever took notes. Casey Anthony was acquitted by the jury on all counts of murder on July 5, 2011, when they ignored the evidence and believed her story to be evident that she held in secret while in jail for three years that Caylee drowned in her family’s swimming pool.
...By all means, it is incumbent upon us to exercise our 1st amendment rights to hold the jurors and all future jurors to an ever higher standard. The same standards hold true when the nation elects an anti-constitutionalist enemy of the free market. Follow the environmentalists...
Thanks, I googled, but I couldn’t find for sure. I thought she had been, but I wasn’t positive, there has been so much info over the years.
One of the jurors made it despite stating that she did not like to judge other people.
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.