I'm sure you've heard of the Casey Anthony murder trial. Anthony was charged with killing her two year old daughter. The jury came back with a not guilty verdict on July 5. ABC interviewed one of the jurors, Jennifer Ford. First let me say if you watch the interview, it was despicable the way reporter Terry Moran treated Ms. Ford. It was clear he came in from a position that the jury made a terrible mistake and constantly needled Ms. Ford about getting justice for Caylee. He also assumed that the state had made its case. That's Fox News territory, Mr. Moran. I also admire the way Ms. Ford stood her ground.
But I want to write about how Juror Jennifer Ford is a hero. With all the yelling and screaming in the country over the verdict, she had the courage to tell the world why they reached the decision they did. And she told us that she followed the law. She wasn't driven by emotion but followed what the law demanded. She and her fellow jurors followed the strength of their convictions. Justice also means adhering to the law. And in the end Ms. Ford and her fellow jurors are heroes of American law.
You see in this country, the United States, a criminal conviction requires the state prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the highest burden of proof in American law. The rationale is to make the state meet this heavy burden before it takes something away that is fundamental to Americans, that is freedom. There is a maxim that it is better to let ten guilty people go free than let one innocent person suffer. And while it seems unjust to let a guilty Casey go free, it would be a tragedy to convict an innocent Casey Anthony.
Ms. Ford said the state could not prove its case. Was it murder? What was the cause of death? Or was it a drowning in the pool? Could the state link Defendant Casey Anthony to the cause of death? Remember the state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if the jurors believed that Casey killed Caylee but could not find that state proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt then the verdict must be not guilty.
On July 5th, Ms. Jennifer Ford and her fellow jurors protected the American system of justice. They held the state to its burden of proof which is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense. Before the state can take a person's life or liberty, the state must meet its burden of proof. The jurors in the Casey Anthony trial were not stampeded to vengeance. They followed the law and found the state had not made its case. The jurors in the Casey Anthony trial defended freedom.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
I respectfully disagree. The jurors obviously did not take the time to review the evidence together during their deliberations which should have been the bare minimum in fulfilling their duty. It has been reported that they did not ask for one piece of evidence nor ask any questions which speaks to how lightly they took this duty. Juror #3 even admitted herself that they just had "discussions." Clearly their verdict was based on emotions, suspicions and innuendo, not the facts in evidence. Juror #3 spoke so much about the "penalty" and "punishment." They should have been more focused on deciding guilt based on the evidence not on the possible penalty outcome. She also said today on "Good Morning America": "If they charged her with other things, we probably could have gotten a guilty verdict, absolutely. But not for death, not for first-degree murder. That's a very substantial charge." Is this juror not aware that lesser charges were included??? Very questionable in my opinion. Bottom line is that they did not understand what "reasonable doubt" means and were more concerned with a possible death penalty than in reviewing the evidence. The fact that they were so "sick" over their decision is because deep down, they know it was not the right thing to do, morally or legally. A 2-year-old child does not end up thrown in the woods stuffed in 3 bags with 3 pieces of duct tape around her head with her own mother not reporting her missing for 31 days and it just be an accident that went wrong. I had the luxury of watching every single minute of this trial and had no problem coming to the reasonable, logical conclusion of guilt based on the evidence. I doubt that most of the verdict/jury defenders who claim there was not enough evidence to convict can say the same. Maybe it makes them feel better to believe that's the reason for the verdict or it supports their own personal ideologies, but that doesn't make it true. You were right about one thing: it IS unjust to let a guilty Casey go free.
What a load of crap.
Bernie Wong gets it wrong.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with what Mr. Wong wrote or the jury's verdict...
Get real. This is America, where the constitution actually stands for something.
@ First Comment
My actual comment about it being unjust to let a guilty Casey go, reads as follows, "And while it seems unjust to let a guilty Casey go free, it would be a tragedy to convict an innocent Casey Anthony." That refers to the legal maxim cited in the preceding sentence. That's the context.
Bernie i agree with you to max, living in the united states it gives us the rights as americans to ajudicate our peers they way we see fit, in this case there was alot of evidence that they had to take in, but the evidence that they took into account was discrediting what george anthonys testimony was. He played the feel sorry for me grandfather, but also was trying to have his have your cake and eat it moment on the side with river and they didnt truly know what to believe with him. Im sorry but if i pick up my daughters car at the tow lot and being a former cop smell what i think is decomp. Im gonna call the cops, because something wasnt right and he can call the cops on a missing gas can, but a granddaughter who spent everynight at the house for pretty much her whole life doesnt come home for over a month and they doesnt call the cops.
Post a Comment