I agree but it does show the flaw in the system. I have to disagree, you say it's a flaw because in this case the outcome was one which you do not agree with.
That doesn't constitute a flaw it's, and I don't mean to be flippant, just the way the ball bounces sometimes.
Over the long run, the system works and the best one there is.
IMO, because it doesn't go your way or the way of poplar opinion, you don't react by making the system draconian just to fit your desires...after all, isn't that tyranny?
Believe me, I understand the emotion attached to this case and I want the person who is ultimately responsible to be held to account, but we can't start changing the system just because the person who many think is responsible couldn't have the case proved against her.
I disagree with you, it is a flaw. When you gather a group of random people who have no law training and or lack critical thinking skills you never know what you are going to get. I am not asking for the system to be changed as I agree that it is a protection against the tyranny of the government. Criminals walk free every day because of jury nullification. I remember about 4 years ago when the Boston D.A. lost three easy murder convictions in one month. Those murderers were released back into the neighborhoods and committed more crimes. This case just amplifies the problem with the jury system. We have heard from the alternate juror who proves my point. When other jurors come forward I won't be shocked as to their thought process. Politicians know that the general public is stupid, just look at their campaign advertisements. The law doesn't allow the prosecutor to say outlandish things like “the father did it and made the accident look like a murder”. Only the defense can get away with unethical behavior. I don't know how to fix the flaw but it is there.