Okay, folks, I know everyone is upset that Casey Anthony avoided conviction, but if you understand how the decision was made by the jury, maybe you won’t get so many gray hairs over the deal. Here’s how it works:
For capital crimes, there has to be *zero* doubt in any juror’s mind that the accused is guilty. That means none. No doubt whatsoever. You simply cannot send someone to their death because your gut tells you they are guilty, no matter what the evidence suggests. That is vigilantism and this isn’t the Wild West. We have rules now days.
I was in law school for a while, and I decided to get out and not pursue that career because of the way the system is. I’m not saying it’s wrong, or corrupt, or doesn’t work, I’m saying that it isn’t perfect and that a lot of injustices go on every single day, rules or no rules. I wanted no part of that game, because that is exactly what it is: a game. Only when you are playing with other peoples’ lives and futures, it isn’t so fun. I’ll stick to chess, thanks.
Think of the Casey Anthony trial as kind of watching a magician; the audience knows, without a doubt, that the guy on stage is pulling a trick off. I mean, they know it. However, if nobody can prove exactly how the trick is pulled off, then it’s still magic. Likewise, although most of the free world is convinced that Casey Anthony is guilty of the crime she was accused of, nobody effectively proved it beyond any doubt. Heck, even if most or all of the jurors thought she did it, the law is very clear that if there is the slightest doubt in your mind, you cannot convict. Hence, Casey Anthony walks free. At least, until she gets lynched by one of the aforementioned vigilantes.
So before you get upset at the jurors and wonder just what the hell they were thinking, please realize that the rules they were playing by do not give a lot of wiggle room and that without a one-hundred-percent, not-a-doubt-in-my-mind mentality, acquittal is the only viable option.
1 comment:
totally agree!
Post a Comment