The Right Opinion
Should We Abolish the Jury System?
On Tuesday, a Florida jury found Casey Anthony not guilty of first-degree murder in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee Marie.
As so often happens in high profile cases, the jury was wrong.
Casey clearly murdered her daughter. Her mom, Cindy, reported that Caylee was missing on July 15, 2008. Casey's cover story was unbelievably ridiculous. When Casey's mom, Cindy, confronted Casey at Casey's boyfriend's apartment, Casey actually claimed that a random baby sitter nobody had ever met had taken Caylee away over a month beforehand.
Cindy called the cops, informing them, "I found my daughter's car today. And it smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car." Sure enough, cadaver dogs identified the trunk of Casey's car as a dead body location, and scientists confirmed that a body had decomposed back there. A few months after a jury indicted Casey, police found Caylee's corpse in the woods near Casey's home, duct tape on her head.
The defense did a Johnny Cochrane routine -- they blamed everybody within a 10 mile radius of the murder for the murder. Defense attorney Jose Baez suggested that Casey's dad, George, had sexually abused her during her childhood, without any evidence whatsoever. Baez also claimed that Caylee had drowned in the pool while George was at home, and that George had been involved in dumping the body.
There was no evidence to any of this. It was pure conjecture, a sociopathic response to being caught red-handed. And Casey Anthony is a sociopath: outwardly charming, pathologically lying, indecently self-centered, lacking in shame or guilt, promiscuous, exploitative and irresponsible, and willing to hurt anyone and everyone in order to get her way.
So, why did the jury acquit her? Because the jury system, as currently run, is stupid.
Yes, jury trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution (although only with regard to federal cases). It was originally considered a hallmark of civilized criminal justice because citizens did not want to be subjected to government inquisitions, with the court stacked against them. Juries were supposed to be a bulwark against governmental encroachment.
Nowadays, juries have become a hallmark of our heavily bureaucratized system. Those who have day jobs are eager to avoid serving on juries, mainly because the convoluted rules of procedure and evidence have turned summary trials into week-long events. By and large, only the least offensive -- and not coincidentally, the dumbest -- tend to be selected for juries. As the aphorism goes, the problem with juries is that they are generally composed of the 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
The phrase "show trial" now means something different -- it means a trial that is a show. That's precisely what O.J. and Casey Anthony were about. Every juror expects to see Sam Waterston get up and deliver opening remarks, and damned if the court system won't do its best to provide that entertainment. The provision of the Constitution that requires a public trial is now used to ensure that trials become media circuses.
Should we embrace the European inquisitorial system, in which judges ask the questions and come up with the decisions? Should we hire professional jurors?
The answer doesn't lie in abolishing the jury system utterly, but in revamping it completely.
The rationale behind juries is still important, particularly with regard to politically-oriented trials: We don't want judges paid by government to have full authority to condemn those of different political persuasions. And the rationale behind a public trial is also still relevant -- we don't want Star Chambers or clandestine hearings. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
By the same token, however, our current jury system is broken beyond repair. If we are truly to restore justice to our system of justice, we must pursue the best and brightest for service, make it easier for them to serve, make the rules of evidence and procedure more efficient, and allow justice to run more smoothly. Most Americans would be willing to serve on a jury for a day. Few would be willing to do so for a week and even fewer for a month. We need more day-long trials and less month-long trials. We need more justice and less showmanship.
Caylee Anthony, sadly, wasn't just the victim of her mother here. She was the victim of a system that did not mete out justice to her murderer. There will be many more cases like Caylee Anthony until we do something to solve this mess.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
114 Comments
JC
Wednesday, July 6, 2011 at 8:58 AM
I propose professional jurors, such as those in Robert Heinlein's novel, 'Stranger in a Strange Land'. Folks trained in logic and Rule of Law ... as opposed to the Jerry Springer audience you're likely to find in any given city.
RamonaG
Wednesday, July 6, 2011 at 2:16 PM
I find jury duty highly insulting. To expect that I would be unbiased toward some dirtbag at the table, after I've spent valuable time waiting the entire day away, only to be subject to some conniving attorney's inane crap, is ridiculous!
anonymous in anonymous
Monday, March 11, 2013 at 2:10 PM
Because no innocent person was ever convicted or tried and the legal system is perfect right?
SteveJ
Wednesday, July 6, 2011 at 2:59 PM
Why did the jury acquit Ms. Anthony?Not because they were stupid (what an insult, BTW), but because the prosecution did not prove their case. Junk science (the presence of chemicals around the trunk that could have been explained in hundreds of ways), pseudo-science (a cadaver dog that 'alerts' is evidence?), a coroner who couldn't decisively give a cause of death, impeachments of the prosecution's witnesses (Ms. Anthony's mother's statement, in particular)...and on and on.Ms. Anthony may or may not be a sociopath. That was not the question put to the jury.The prosecution threw a lot of mud against the wall in the form of charges, hoping that one or two would stick. None did, because they did not prove their case, which in our system is their obligation.If there were enough evidence to convince beyond a reasonable doubt, the fanciful stories that the defense put forward would have been meaningless. But there were enough questions that "maybe this happened..." had enough weight to cause doubt."Juries were supposed to be a bulwark against governmental encroachment." BINGO!I'm sure the jurors that sat through this trial would be thrilled to know that you cast them as "stupid".The case you make for revamping our jury system is even more feeble than Ms. Anthony's prosecutors' case.
Cochise
Wednesday, July 6, 2011 at 3:24 PM
That the 6th Amendment only applies to Federal juridictions is an argument used against the 16th Amendment for not paying taxes.It seems to me, though I'm untrained in the construing of law, that the 6th Amendment would apply to all cases throughout the land. Do the other Amendments only apply to Federal cases? the 2nd Amendment?The 6th Amendment text:"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Holmes Simons
Wednesday, July 6, 2011 at 4:00 PM
Ben, for once I have to stongly disagree with you. The prosecution failed abysmally to PROVE who killed Caylee, how she was killed, why she was killed, and when she was killed, if, in fact, she was killed. Their case was weaker than "laughing man's" selection of ties. The prosecution proclaimed Casey to be intelligent. What intelligent person would kill a child, put the body in a trunk, drive around for days until it smelled like a decomposing body, and then dump the body 200 yards from home? Only an idiot, and my money is on "tearless" George, the desposer. The prosecution became so hungup on its egomaniacal speculations that it failed to produce any real evidence. No DNA from a rotten body in the trunk, false computer records, lying police officers with disfunctional olfactory senses, and millionSSS of wasted taxpayer dollars should be enough to prosecute the prosecution for incompetence. They would never survive a jury of their peers. (Oh, I forgot, they are government employees, who according to Lamar Lawson, did just a superduper job.) God Bless America. I, for one, have faith again.
Gelio
Wednesday, July 6, 2011 at 4:05 PM
@Ben - The problem was not the jury as you state, but the prosecution, th epolice who investigated the case, and medical examiners office who botched the autopsy. They (the police and DA) pre-determined the guilt of their suspect, and then stopped doing the leg work necessary to convict her without a "shadow of a doubt". The prosecution dropped the ballon this, not the jury. When the defense brings in a world reknowned ME that not only refutes the prosecutions ME's findings, but refers to it as shoddy, and that the autopsy wasn’t worth the paper it was written on, you have problems. ME Spitz' testimony is probably what turned the case for Casey, without him, she goes down.
Richard Ryan
Wednesday, July 6, 2011 at 4:08 PM
I am certainly thankful that I was not on that jury.Having the responsibility of deciding on the fate of another human being is a heavy weight to carry.Ms.Anthony was tried in the court of public opinion for three years.It would be helpful if a blackout was applied to the news media prior to a trial and verdict.Richard RyanLamar,Missouri - Birthplace of Harry S Truman
Ted R. Weiland
Wednesday, July 6, 2011 at 4:14 PM
"Although it only takes one juror to dissent and prevent a “railroad job,” most people lack the independence and resolution to resist the will of a majority. More often than not, today’s jurors reflect the type of people we are warned against in Exodus 23: 'Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment.' (Exodus 23:2)"Yahweh’s law does not provide for, but rather condemns, the jury system. "Excerpted from "Article 3: Judicial Usurpation" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt6.php.
Holmes Simons
Wednesday, July 6, 2011 at 4:42 PM
Richard, I share your feelings, and the blackout should extend to post-verdict, also. The great thing about this trial was seeing how biased, incompetent, and downright stupid 99% of TV pundits really are. Honestly, who wants a job where you talk all the time, while knowing absolutely nothing about anything. With the exception of Dr. Keith Ablow and Judge Napolitano, I will never again trust any talking head on Fox or waste my time listening to anything they have to say. I've long since ditched the other TV media. Unbelievable!
Yvonne Prelutsky
Wednesday, July 6, 2011 at 5:29 PM
I am amazed at people who swallow media hype and consider themselves a cut above the rest. Those who only glance at the legal system on rare occasions know that anyone sitting on death row has already accumutlated a lifelong history of crimes before the law and the jury system finally catches up with them. And in the case of a sociopath who may not have a prior history of crimes, fools rush in to excuse the offense merely because of a dysfunctional family? Why not protect the public from future mayhem? Prosecutors work with both hands tied behind their backs, precluded from telling jurors the real facts in a case. Laws have been mangled into games to aid the guilty and the hijinks continue. Defense lawyers hide behind the rule that exempts them from moral responsibility. They are trained to leap to an alternate killer premise. Why is it that defense attorneys are not compelled to stick to facts, not whole cloth inventions to escape reality? It is one thing to defend the accused. Another to aid and abet, when those same lawyers are in a position to know beyond a reasonable doubt which client is really a danger to society and should be separated from society. Defense lawyers should never be allowed to fabricate or invent absurd scenarios, as they often do. Society has an obligation to protect the innocent. When a dangerous sociopath is let loose on society, and even further crimes are committed, the defense attorney who set them free should suffer a penalty. Nobody seems to care about the future damage to innocents who may cross the path of those set free by a jury that was blinded from truth and facts by legal gamesmanship.
Army Officer
Wednesday, July 6, 2011 at 8:29 PM
Hey, I know what's stupid, Ben: allowing only people certified in the law by the government to judge people.I have known FAR too many crooked cops and prosecutors to want to trust them with my freedom.No case - no conviction. The SYSTEM worked this time, it was the state that failed to prove anything beyond lying to the police (while I'm at it, why aren't police prosecuted when THEY lie during an investigation? THAT happens a thousand times every day.)Ben Shapiro now has the dubious distinction of being the ideological soul-mate of Nancy Grace. Congratulations, Ben: you're as low as she is.
Ashley in Illinois
Friday, May 3, 2013 at 12:13 PM
@Army Officer, good job only sounding like an ass by insulting another.
Richard Ryan
Wednesday, July 6, 2011 at 9:00 PM
Army Officer you are exactly right concerning Nancy Grace.She`s a vile B*%@h.Any time my wife turns that muck raking sensationalist on I leave the room.Richard RyanLamar,Missouri - Birthplace of Harry S Truman
Dave
Wednesday, July 6, 2011 at 9:48 PM
I agree that the jury system is utterly broken. I suggest a different solution, however: Educate the public in civic responsibility. Teach them critical thinking and give them a moral compass to guide their decisions. Teach them to be men and women of courage and self-reliance. Inform them about human history and the deadly danger of allowing government to grow out of control.Not possible you say? Again, I disagree - they are about to learn the hard way.
Ashley in Illinois
Friday, May 3, 2013 at 12:14 PM
@Dave, I agree with you 100%. We just need to educate people. Then we know they are really prepared to be on the jury.
BoFromTexas
Wednesday, July 6, 2011 at 11:48 PM
I was at one time a prosecutor of misdemeanor crimes, which included drunk driving. A jury turned loose a defendant who following his arrest a .26 on the breathalyzer (.10 is deemed by law to be drunk), drove his car through a liquor store front window at 2:05 a.m., and two civilians and 4 cops testified the guy could not even stand up while the accident was being investigated. It turned out the jury was not aware they should debate and discuss the event to reach a verdict. They went back, took one vote, and returned a verdict of not guilty. I saw a jury convict a man of a federal crime regarding drug smuggling, and the government never alleged any connection to drug smuggling. The man is in prison. He was a preacher who criticized the federal government publicly. Crooked judge, crooked federal prosecutor, stupid jury. Innocent man in prison now for 5 years. Not allowed for 5 years to see his wife, a dangerous piano teacher aged 56. This is our jury system. Get a stupid jury, or those who presume that if someone is arrested, he is guilty as charged. I blame stupid people sitting on juries, and I blame judges who issue jury instructions. Defense lawyers are doing what they are paid to do, even though they often represent despicable people. The jury system has huge problems. Look at the debacle of the trial of a Guantanamo prisoner. About 80 counts of murder, and conviction on two counts by a jury in a criminal court of law. Many trial lawyers like stupid jurors and will defend the system. I wanted smart jurors because they could and would understand what I was trying to convey. I also performed civil jury trials, and was impressed by the bias, untruthfulness, and stupidity of many jurors, many of whom used the occasion to grind an ax against one side or the other. My opinion is that the system is too broke to be fixed. Its gonna get worse, not better.
BoFromTexas
Wednesday, July 6, 2011 at 11:51 PM
Regarding my previous post, for the uninformed, jury decisions are required to be unanimous. One person voting against 5 or 11 others can decide the verdict if he cannot be persuaded by the rest.