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.
Yes, and proving it to the jury was a tall order.
Because she was such a neglectful mother, we know that she had something to do with her daughter’s death. The whole family dynamic in her family is bizarre. But proving anything to a jury was something the prosecution wasn’t able to do.
My attitude is to get over it. Yes, I thought she was guilty, but the post acquittal fallout is getting ridiculous. Jurors not wanting their names published due to the risk of becoming a target. Death threats. Vigilante justice.
Get over it people. Really.
TV notables Bill O'Reilly and Nancy Grace.
I find them both insufferable. She asks for a report, then shoots the messenger.
Another shining moment was when she complained about people cashing in on "blood money". What do you think you have been doing for the last three years Nancy?
i agree. good article, making valid points.
however, a corrupted jury system, serves no one,
but lawyers.
just as our Founder Father’s certainly wanted INFORMED voters.
not people living for generations on government handouts, who need the “D” next to the name, to know who to vote for.
...the Jury system, deliberately gets rid of the most intelligent and knowledgeable jurors. ...if you follow news, you’re gone. if you even know what “jury nullification” means, you’re gone. etc.
Not really. It continues to make the same mistakes that others defending this jury make. One, that cricizing this jury and this decision is an attack on the system.
...and I suspect that you will be getting attacked by those who became emotionally invested in this young womans’ guilt."
And two, that critics must be emotionally biased and poorly informed.
News flash. You can be dispassionate and have well founded views based on the evidence, and think the jury was wrong. And you can think they were wrong in this case and still believe in the jury system.
"Knowing that someone is guilty and proving it are two vastly different things."
Defenders also routinely make the intellectually lazy step of assuming that because the jury acquited that it's somehow given the crime wasn't proven. Again, false assumption. The jury could have, and did in this case, ignored the evidence to reach its decision.
“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.
I became emotionally involved with this trial because I, UNLIKE YOU (I am willing to bet a couple-a paychecks), watched the damn thing. They didn’t prove it??? Oh, really? PROVE that they didn’t prove it! Are you taking the word of those idiot, lazy jurors? Or maybe the Criminal Defense attorneys chiming in - the same upstanding guys who defended OJ and THOSE jurors? HAHAHAHA!
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.