Showing 114 comments for
Should We Abolish the Jury System?

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.

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!

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.

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."

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.

@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.

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

"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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I strongly disagree with your opinion here. The problem isn't that juries consist of people too stupid to get out of jury duty. I have served on juries before and in every case I found the jurors to be truly a group of average citizens, a good mix of race,sex,and intelligence. It is a disgrace that more are not willing to serve on a jury. It is a part of your privilege and duty as a citizen of this great nation. When you are on a jury, you are given instructions as to the criteria for finding a person guilty or not guilty and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. The jury can only base its decision on the evidence presented and that is precisely why the jurors were sequestered during the trial. They were not influenced by the constant bombardment of opinions and speculations the rest of us were by the news media and social networks. We should be thankful to have a jury system. The results may not have been as some would like, and there is no doubt that there are flaws in the legal system, but neither the jury system nor the jurors are the problem.

I think the problem is two-fold: jurors who believe that guilt "beyond reasonable doubt" means "beyond any shred of doubt whatsoever," and the tendency for them to think that they are duty-bound to ignore common sense. Even the Anthony jurors who are granting interviews are saying it "broke their hearts" to find her not guilty. This is because they believed she was guilty, but thought they were not allowed to say so.Want to get out of jury duty? Simply utter these magic words: "Jury nullification." This is when a jury uses good sense, and not just the judge's instructions, to make their finding. The idea behind using randomly-selected juries (rather than panels of legal experts) was that common citizens would be less likely to be swayed by precedent in laws that were no longer applicable, or whose application had drifted from their original intent. That common sense is lost when juries are instructed to be mere finders of fact, referees comparing the performances of the prosecution and defense, rather than judging the guilt or innocence of the accused.The child is dead. The duct tape over her mouth, and the hiding of the body, together show that her death was the result of malicious intent, which renders the cause of death largely irrelevant. Her mother's behavior makes her the most likely culprit, whether alone or with assistance. The rest is smoke and mirrors, and had the jury realized that they need not limit themselves to such purposeful distrantions, the verdict would have been much different.

I agree with you. Why not be rid of the cumbersome, complicated judicial system and just let the media decide cases?

Was called for jury duty early this year. We were told the only people who would be excused would be judges and lawyers, and then only if they had court business (cases) pending with in the projected time limits for the cases they would be selected for. Our jury system is good. The problem we have is with so many lawyers - the ones who benefit from the laws - passing and enacting laws that will benefit them. We could do quite well, thank you, with about half our current laws.As expert witnesses learned long ago, nothing is 100% certain, so they began to use the phrase "scientific certainty," which adhered to a 99.99% standard. Had this jury been charged with finding to a "99% certainty" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt" the results could well have been different. Of course, you can't execute on a 99% certainty, so the death penalty is automatically removed from the equation.

You have no idea what you are talking about. At a practicing trial lawyer who has won and lost jury trials I can tell you that juries, when given full access to the facts, obtain Divine results. When the jury door shuts, the Holy Spirit enters. You and the Holy Spirit have never met so you have no idea what I am talking about. Think OJ killed Nicole?Think again: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7905933759946122795

It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, “whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,” and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.~John Adams

You're kidding, right? The jury system is the only protection we have against tyrannical government throwing its enemies in jail. Read the Founding Fathers.John SeilerManaging Editor, CalWatchDog.comhttp://calwatchdog.com

I wonder if it's lost on whomever reads this blog that the entire article by Mr. Shapiro runs contrary to the very mission statement of The Patriot Post. Mentioning the jury system as a fundamental bulwark against state overreaching would probably be "stupid" in Mr. Shapiro's eyes.When Mr. Shapiro says he wants rules and evidence to be more efficient what he is really saying is constitutional safeguards be damned - let the state screw anybody to the wall that it deems worthy of that treatment. As a resident of Dallas County which has the highest number of overturned death penalty convictions,in the state with the most, I find Mr. Shapiro's willingness to destroy our fundamental rights in pursuit of "justice" a lot less convincing an argument.Did Casey Anthony kill her daughter? I don't know, Mr. Shapiro doesn't know and the jury found that the prosecution didn't prove it's case. It is a saying for a reason - better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent person go to prison (or death).

She was supposed to be judged by a jury of her peers. Must've been a shortage of mentally ill, tattooed white trash folk there. ;-) Seriously, I think the jury did its job. The only thing we really know, besides Casey being a lying woman of extremely poor-character, is that Caylee is dead. No cause of death determined, as the jury noted. Capital murder is a high bar.

Is it not already bad enough that the DA, the judge, and sometimes the defense attorney are all paid by the state and that the case is framed as "the state versus...?" Even the jury as it currently stands is also paid by the state and FORCED into service by law and force. Yet another permanently employed group working for the government would surely spell the end of what little freedom and liberty we have left.It has always been the right of juries to nullify the law in addition to judging the facts. Despite the fact that judges no longer tell juries this truth and LIE to them about what they are allowed to do, Jefferson among many realized that this independent jury was possibly the last bastion against legislative oppression. It was used to help end slavery, prohibition, and other offensive government actions. What you are calling for would fully undermine that force for good.Face it, the prosecution overstretched. They had evidence for manslaughter at best but the DA wanted to go out with a huge victory. His loss. The jury is force to keep the emotions of the masses at bay. If you have a problem with anything, it should be with the government and its failed case.

The state failed to make a case and somehow it is the jury that is stupid? You sir are blaming the wrong party in this post.The jury system is fine the way it is, if anything we need to go back to the way it was intended where the jury was informed to consider both the law and the facts when deciding a case. The last thing we need to do is turn over one more aspect of our system of justice to the state.

the two biggest problems of the jury system are: Pay and involuntariness. Currently, the jurors are only paid a tiny stipend. Here in Phoenix where I own a taxi company (http://www.paulstaxi.com ) Jury pay is a pitiful $12 a day. I (and many others like me) cannot afford to serve on a jury. Increasing the pay to $200 a day would attract and keep far more jurors. Second, jury duty is mandatory. if I fail to respond to a summons, I can, conceivably, be sent to jail! Making jury duty voluntary, and allowing those with idle time on their hands to volunteer, would go a long ways toward improving the system as well. There are many who would gladly serve on a jury, and many who cannot find the time to do so. Let the jurors decide for themselves whether they want to serve or not. and compensate them for their time. This idiocy of forcing people to serve and then insulting them by paying a pittance is at the root of many problems with our justice system today

Here's the best commentary I've seen yet on this dreadfully over-hyped case:http://counterpunch.org/knapp07072011.html

We should absolutely abolish the trial by jury of your peers system, as long as the rest of the kangaroo cour system goes with it.The problem is this girl should have never been indicted. The police and DA can present whatever nonsense, completely fictional evidence during the Grand Jury indictment process because there is no defendant party present to dispute the validity of the 'evidence'.

@Ted: Agree with you 150%"When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." John 8:7To my hypocritical, judgmental, warmongering brothers and sisters: I, for one, worship the Prince of Peace. Do you?And we call this a Christian nation. What gall.

For a website that claims to advocate for Liberty, don't you realize that you are advocating for Tyranny here.

We always knew you were a NEOCON, Shapiro, but now we see you're actually a good little Bundist. National Socialism could have used a man like you.

You have missed the most outrageous revelation of the case of Casey Anthony. I recently saw a news report that the Prosecution wants to charge Miss Anthony for the cost of the prosecution. The total was approximately $500,000. So this D.A., allowing himself to be baited by the ever self interested Miss Nasty Grace, decided to go forward with this case even though he had no real evidence and further, even though he KNEW he would be spending approximately a half million taxpayer dollars, and now, he wants a 100 pound uneducated 24 year woman who has been incarcerated for the last three years to pay for his decision! What is this guy on?

There are problems with the jury system, and there are related problems with the attorneys and judges. The jury system should be returned to its original intent, and the excesses of the judges and attorneys curtailed. First, the jury is and always was, the trier of the law as well as the facts. The jury can judge the merits (justice, applicability, fairness, constitutionality) of the law itself (jury nullification, as was mentioned). This was used historically to protect the rights of the unjustly accused (Penn, Zenger) in ways that mattered greatly in the development of our legally recognized rights. Judges falsely tell jurors that they can only judge the facts and they must take the law from him. This is a judicial abuse and should be stopped, as well as the jury selection process which weeds out people of conscience, and often intelligence. Jury selection should be concerned only with whether the prospective juror is related to a party to the trial, or has business ties, and similar questions. Of course, if there were fewer Malum Prohibitum laws on the books, trials could focus on Malum in Se laws, where there is a victim and an actual crime. Then maybe jurors could be paid a decent wage, and expect to be treated as competent, aware citizens. If there are problems with the rules of evidence, that is not something that can be blamed on jurors.

Nice arm chair quarterbacking...uh judgin', Ben! Supported by the media "theater" surrounding the event, I'm pleased you were able to render your verdict. I very much hope that you experience the life-destroying power and force of the STATE in your life someday. You obviously need it to happen to you, and it can happen to anyone so there's hope for you.

The jury system needs to be restored to it's proper and full power. That is the power to JUDGE THE LAW as well as the facts. It's bad enough that the jury system has been stripped of its real reason for being, to stop bad law, but now people want to abolish it because it isn't a 100% rubber stamp on whatever government says? How absurd. It's bad enough that government has a monopoly on the courts and the whole system is tilted in government's favor allowing bureaucrats to harass productive people at will. I suppose people don't want to be free, they want to be well kept serfs and slaves living under some sort pre-magna-carta rule of bureaucrats and their bosses. But here's the problem, the 'well kept' part goes away under such conditions. It can't and doesn't last. What I've heard from the jurors the system worked fairly well for once. The state put on a poor case and could not prove its charges. Just because outsiders feel she is guilty doesn't matter. If things are to change because of that, might as well get rid of trials entirely and have violent mobs just kill whomever is thought to be guilty by uninformed popular thought.

The prosecution overreached-juries never execute women. Shapiro should go back to summer camp and sue his barber. Thar picture doesn't make him look intense, just more like David Berkowitz. You take aa the kids killed through abortion and these illegal wars, and this whole thing is just supposed to make Americans feel moral.

Very well, if you're so damn concerned with Caylee, then why not get some tissue samples and clone her back to life some day? Likely that could be done by 2050.So go... do it.Otherwise, forget about her as just one more amongst the ca. 100 billion who have ever lived up till now, essentially all of whom have vanished without leaving any trace.

A jury acquits somebody you think is guilty (as if your opinion mattered at all), and now the entire jury system is broken? Baloney. Your brain is broken. The jury did exactly what is was supposed to: hear evidence, weigh the evidence, deliberate about the evidence, reach a verdict. The prosecution failed to prove its case to the jury, the only people whose opinions mattered. That's our justice system, which thankfully does not include nincompoop commentators.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer."- William BlackstoneThe jury system is the best we have and it was established long before this nation for a reason. And here we have a 'conservative' on a website that claims it's the 'voice of essential liberty' calling for doing away with a guarantee going back at least to the Magna Carta.I don't agree with the verdict either but calling for the removal of a guarantee of freedom is well there's no other word for it..fascist.

What else could be expected of a statist like Mr. Shapiro? He who would gladly sacrifice lives (both American and foreign) to expand the empire, while he remains comfortably behind. I have read many of his essays, and while he claims to be "conservative," his underlying mentality is of submission to the state. By claiming that juries should be abolished, he shows his belief that state officials (judges) are better suited to deem the guilt or innocence of an individual than the "mundanes" (juries of peers). By Mr. Shapiro's logic, any chosen state official is obviously more knowledgeable, and therefore can make better decisions than those who chose them. The belief that government officials somehow are superior to regular civilians is the hallmark of every statist; Wilson, Lenin, Roosevelt (both!), Hitler, Churchill, Mussolini, Stalin, Pot, Kim, Castro, Che, Minh, the list goes on and on. All believed that the almighty government could cure every ill of society and anyone opposed should be reeducated, incarcerated, or executed. I should add Shapiro and his ilk to that list.

In the USA of the 2011, I don't see how anyone can convict this mother of a crime besides extreme procrastination. In this culture of death what is the difference between aborting her unwanted child and killing her a couple years later? She just wasn't proactive is all.

You do realize that jurors have the power to right societal wrongs right? They can be instructed to do anything before their verdict, but in the end they can find however they want. This means that if the law says that you can be given life in prison for stealing a twinkie and it's crystal clear that the guy stole a twinkie, a single juror can hang the jury and prevent a guy for spending life in prison for stealing a fricken twinkie! or smoking a joint...or writing bad checks, or whatever if it carries a ridiculous sentence. This is a great privilege, not some frivolous afterthought of our legal system

While most State constitutions mirror the protections in the Federal constitution, the 14th amendement passes those protections and rights to the states anyway. I find it the height of arrogance that you believe 12 professional jurists would unanimously agree with your evaluation of the evidence against Casey Anthony. Besides, the jury has the power to acquit/nullify on any basis it likes. That wasn't the case here, but juries don't serve to validate the opinions of the viewers at home.

Did any of you who so readily slam Mr. Shapiro actually read his essay, or did you mistake the provocative question in the title as a declarative statement?He's not actually calling for an end to jury trials, just a "revamp" of the system. He wrote, "The answer doesn't lie in abolishing the jury system utterly, but in revamping it completely."Maybe you all missed that part as you were formulating your fuming responses. Many of you make good points, but you're countering something that just wasn't there.Try a little reading comprehension next time.

The juries that put millions of peaceable individuals into slavery for victimless crimes? Sure, let us dispose of them. Then let us string them up, stab their guts through and through, scream their cursed names at their horrified children and then move along to the dumb twentysomething idiot commentariates that got us worked up into such a passion oh my the body sings but it does such scream at times Ben.

There is little doubt that a civics deficient society makes for less than suitable jurors. However, the law is far too important to be left to arrogant judges, self-serving, unethical lawyers and the rogue mass media.Not at all satisfied by the idea of a jury of his peers, I wonder how comfortable Mr. Shapiro would be if his fate rested in the hands of twelve people whose thoughts on this issue matched precisely with his own.

Wow, your dumber than that insane Nancy Grace.

Here's an idea: a private judicial system. Jurors in our current judicial system are by definition slaves.

Ben Shapiro has assumed the role of informed jury member, wise judge, and even court psychiatrist, in pronouncing a woman he does not know and has never even met as a sociopath. Instead, he should just admit that the state, with its usual incompetent and overweening arrogance, failed to prove its case beyond a shadow of a doubt. But I guess that might indeed require a repudiation of the entire neoconservative world scheme.

You mean like under "halakha" (Judaism's "sharia") where us subhuman goyim aren't allowed a jury even in capital cases?"A non-Jew is put to death on the basis of a decision given by one judge [no jury], and on the basis of testimony given by a single witness, and even if he was not given a proper warning prior to the commission of his offense. He is put to death on the basis of testimony and a decision given by a man but not on the basis of testimony and a decision given by a woman, and the man who testified or decided against him can even be a relative."A Jew can only be put to death by a court of twenty-three judges, and on the basis of the testimony of two male witnesses who are not disqualified from testifying on account of kinship, and after being properly warned against committing the transgression. But none of these rules apply in the case of a non-Jew." (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 57b, Steinsaltz edition, vol.18, page 110)

You should read Lysander Spooner's, "An Essay on the Trial by Jury". Juries are essential to protecting individual rights against a tyrannical state. By jurors "voting" on the law itself and not just whether or not the defendant committed an act which was prohibited by the state, jurors can effectively nullify unjust laws.

Having served as a juror on a murder trial, and a rape and drugs trial, I can attest to the incredible stupidity displayed by my fellow "jurors". Think: herding cats. The mind boggles just remembering. I look at it this way... PAY every juror a day rate equivalent to the judges pay. That would keep the smarter ones in the running. Stop tossing peanuts out for "your duty". If it was all about duty then all the lawyers and judges should get jury pay and only jury pay for their time. Fair wouldn't you say? You can be certain they'd squeal like pigs. My heart goes out to the little one who perished. The rest? I couldn't give a damn about them.

Based on the media reports it appears the jury competently rendered the correct verdict, except for guilty of lying to a police officer, which is not a constitutionally valid crime unless the person was under oath. The appropriate charge was "obstruction of justice" or "concealment of evidence of a crime". Since that was not charged the jury should have acquitted on lying as well.The last thing we need is professional juries. Those would be compromised from inception. What is needed is to make all arguments on legal motions to the jury as well as to the judge, except for motions to exclude evidence (limine) that cannot be argued without disclosing properly excluded evidence. However, only the defense should be allowed motions in limine in criminal cases. For more on this see http://trial-jury.org .

Ben, So tell us what other parts of our Republic would you abolish? The power of a jury works in the favor or Liberty not in opposition to it. If the evidence doesn't support a conviction then the true value of our legal system is allowing the Jury to review evidence both presented and additional review behind close doors. Perhaps you should move to Belarus, Cuba or even China and allow full statist control of the outcome. If you tamper with the power of the people then we all lose our liberty. I'll mail you my pocket Constitution which includes an entire section regarding Jury nullification. Do you have a PO Box, please provide and it's yours. Thanks, Darel

So basically what you're saying is, that Americans are too stupid to be free?Or are you saying that prosecutors should not have to be able to convince average Americans of guilt, but only Americans who, like them, believe a person to be guilty because they have been charged with a crime?You like to pretend that Nancy Grace's audience is a truer representation of the American people than 12 jurors chosen by the lawyers trying the case. Keep pretending the prosecution is at a disadvantage, when we all know damn well the deck is stacked against the defendant. With all the advantages prosecution enjoys, the ONLY way an innocent person will go free is if they are either truly innocent, or there is demonstrated prosecutorial malfeasance.

Please refer to fija.org which provides a huge amount of information on this subject. Few years ago the jury was the last hope against unjust laws. Now we have degraded futher when the magic words "domestic terrorist" are used to prevent even the justice of being tried by ones peers. I have jury duty mid July, it pays $12/day. I make several times this amount per hour! Yes it is slavery, but it provides incentives for us slaves to access the belly of the beast if needed to judge the law. Want to get out of jury duty? Mention Fully Informed Jury Assocation during trial selection. The reaction is like spraying Holy Water on a vampire! But I will not lie if asked directly and the court likely will not ask that question directly. When asked if I can follow the judges instructions explicitly I answer "Yes". This means I "can" (if I so choose). It does not mean I "must" however.The court system promotes hatred of jury duty and tried to use it to their advantange. Jury duty in reality is of a much higher value than the vote as eleven other people plus myself might defend a person from the overwhelming power of the state!One last thing in all this, if no victim is provided, no crime has been committed. The potential for the probability (such as drunk driving or drug use/possession) not withstanding. Society, the environment, the state, and animals never constitute as being a victim.

Yes. we need to spend the rest of our lives find a system that works I don't think the lawyers nor the judge should ever have any knowledge of the jurors.Although this may not be true,it has been left to appear to the nation.there was some underhanding here .We are a country of integrity.and a society of mass corruption,so it will take all of us we the people to come together to make this happen for the best for all of us.

Right so we should abandon the jury system because the jury didn't convict, should be abandon the system of State prosecution too? Because it wsa the decision of the prosecutors not to give the option of 2nd degree murder that got her off. The evidence for a 2nd degree murder is pretty convincing given her behaviour, but the prosecutors knew that they'd lose their jobs if they settled for that. They are scumbags who put their career ahead of jailing a child-killer, yet you want to remove a check on their power. You sir are no friend of liberty and no patriot.

It is apparent from these comments that many are profoundly misinformed about our legal system. Cases like the Anthony case are the exception, not the rule. The reality is that juries routinely convict suspected criminals on very thin evidence, on the assumption that, as a lady I know once put it, "they probably did something wrong sometime if they've been arrested." Jurors believe police and prosecutors, even though the police routinely lie in order to make sure that people they "know" to be guilty are put away, and prosecutors are essentially politicians who base their claims that they or their bosses should be re-elected to office on the number of convictions they are able to get. If Ms. anthony is indeed guilty, then she is one of a very few criminals who get off. As for defense lawyers, it is entirely ethical for them to propose alternative scenarios; their job is to create reasonable doubt, and their legal and ethical obligations require that at the potential penalty of their law licenses being revoked. On the other hand, prosecutors are supposed to abide by strict ethical rules, including the requirement that they provide potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense and not bring a case if they can't prove it. It is the prosecutor's job to prove his or her case, not the defense's job to prove its case. It has been thus since before our nation was founded. A single case should not be the basis for upending our legal system. I note that the author makes no mention of the many supposed sociopaths and criminals who have been found, after years in prison and in some cases after they have been executed, not to have committed their supposed crime. Let's not let hysterical reaction to the Anthony case, whatever its merits or lack thereof, to blind us to reality.

I have not read this article or read any other of the comment posts. I only answer the title of this article, "Should we abolish the jury system? No , NO, & He[[, NO!

I have now read the article & the comments, still the answer to the title of the article is, as before- no, NO, & He[[, NO!. Jury duty is that a civic duty, not slavery. It is the cost, and the recompense for the exercise of the franchise (Voting). If you do not wish to serve as a Juror, don't Vote. That might be a blessing on our nation. And anyone who does Vote, should bi-annually be called upon to serve as a Juror, poll administer, or court observer in traffic, probate, municipal, etc. courtrooms to see that true justice is done. I've seen a judge conduct kangaroo courts & railroad persons into jail in my local (non-jury) trial courts. A particular judge should be impeached. But I have little power or clout in this fiefdom.

"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."Based on that statement, your solution of abandoning the current jury system won't fix the problem. You blame juries, and complain about them in almost the entire article, but when it comes down to it, you point out that the ACTUAL problem is not with the jury. It's with showmanship and lawyers playing to the camera.The problem is with THE LAWYERS... but like most in the legal profession, you can't bring yourself to blame your own for the problem. There was no reason that the Anthony trial should have lasted as long as it did except the lawyers involved saw it was high profile and decided to play to the camera. It was the fault of your profession that it turned into a circus, and now that the result was "the wrong one", you blame the jury.Shame on you. The jury system is an extremely important check on the abuses of government, and on the abuses of prosecutors who are almost never have to pay for wrongdoings they commit during prosecutions of cases.

The civil jury is probably the most important aspect of our criminal justice system today. Just because you believe Casey Anthony was guilty, does not mean the jury's verdict was wrong. The prosecution failed to prove it's case beyond a resonable doubt, plain and simple. This high burden of proof is put in place to prevent the execution and incarecration of innocent people. The system isn't perfect, but it's the closest thing we have to a fair system. Do you honestly think elmination the civil jury and putting people's lives in the hands of a single judge or privatized individuals is really going to improve the justice system? Shame on you for being so ignorant, I'm speechless someone would ever even suggst elmination the civil jury system.

ben, you are an idiot. the state fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to this jury that anthony killed her daughter and you want to replace our entire system of jurisprudence with one that YOU think will be better? get real. this was ONE case. you do know that many, many others who commit murder are convicted by a jury and sent of to prison everyday. yet you focus on this one case as the reason we should disregard the 6th amendment completely. this entire article is laughable. if you like the justice system in european countries so much you are free to move there. and i doubt anyone here would care. but just because something happens that you do not like or do not agree with does not mean we should disregard or throw out the basic premises of our legal system and rights guaranteed to us by the constitution.

What sort of a joke website would actually publish an article like this? You think you are more qualified to judge this case than the 12 people that spent months reviewing it, and then decided UNANIMOUSLY on a verdict?

This is the most absurd comment I have ever read. Did you pass constitutional law? She was not convicted because the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It's that simple. Not because the jurors are stupid and not because the jury system doesn't work. Oh and by the way, before you post something on the internet be sure to check your facts: Duncan v. LA, a landmark Supreme Court case incorporated the 6th Amendment right to a jury trial to STATES--so it does not only apply to federal cases.

It doesn't matter whether Caylee and Baez came up with a convincing defense.Because the accused in our system is presumed innocent, he or she doesn't come to court with anything to prove.The jury can reject everything the accused says--indeed, the jury can conclude that the accused is lying--and still acquit, because it's the prosecution, and not the accused, that has to prove its case.The jury's not really asked to conclude whether the accused did the thing alleged; it's asked to assess whether the evidence before it can lead to no other reasonable conclusion.I'm pretty sure Caylee was factually guilty. Her behavior was highly suspicious and inculpatory.But, on the evidence adduced, there was a reasonable doubt, or so the jury thought, and she, like anyone else accused of a crime, was entitled to the benefit of that doubt.So, here's a lesson to all the prospective prosecutors out there: if you're trying to pin a first-degree murder charge on someone, you'd do well to at least prove that the victim was killed by a person and not accidentally.~~~On the Sixth Amendment point:The provision was originally construed as applying only to the federal government, but it's since been held binding on the states as well because of the wording of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.Some of the commenters in here were talking about that.

Our jury system is unjust and a huge waste of citizen time and money.Moreover, the attorneys' juror selection process is biased and completey farcical. The attorneys do not give a reason why they dismiss potential jurors. I wonder why discrimination lawsuits have not been filed against attorneys for this.Our jury system creates a huge amount of stress to citizens. Citizens are summoned to appear for jury duty and are given some ridiculously low compensation if chosen. If not chosen, then citizens lose a day's salary; we get backlogged with our workloads for missing a day and we get paid nothing which burdens our families and adds insult to injury. I consider this robbery on behalf of city governments.To be a juror is highly complicated skill, yet the system does not require people to have any legal education (or skill of any kind for that matter)in order to qualify. A complete idiot could determine the fate of an individual and that is perfectly fine as things now stand with the system. Also, attorneys favor people ignorant of law as prospective jurors so as to more easily manipulate outcomes.The jury system has to be revised. An associate degree program in the field should be the minimum requirement. A commesurate salary for such a skilled profession is being completely overlooked. governments. What and how can we make the necessary changes?

I have a great idea. wrather than do away with juries, why not do away eith trials? We could just lynch anyone the media, police or public thinks is guilty. That would be real justice.

Ha ha ha! Are you serious?What the hell is your problem?

Willie:With respect to jury selection, you're referring to a practice known as the "peremptory challenge." The prosecution and defense are each entitled to stand aside a certain number of jurors without stating a reason.They're also entitled to challenge the panel, or an individual juror "for cause," that is, by showing that there's some reason to believe that the juror is not indifferent as between the state and the accused.The latter practice is fairly unobjectionable, but I've never really understood the peremptory challenge practice either. Just remember that that's not the only way you can challenge a juror.You might be surprised to learn, by the way, that, generally speaking, being legally trained is disqualifying.At the federal level, and in most (if not all) of the states, a person who is or has been a judge, lawyer, or police officer is automatically disqualified from jury service.This is done to preserve the role of the trial judge.Once each party has rested, the trial judge instructs the jury in the relevant law (this is known as the "charge" to the jury).If there were people on the jury who already understood (or thought they understood) the underlying law, the judge's role as trier of law would to that extent be usurped.~~~Incidentally, I've noted that the legal profession is by and large a little less shocked with the Anthony verdict than the general public. Perhaps your plan of professionalizing jury duty could backfire?

Sure lets go with brought off judges and prosecutors who are only looking to be re-elected..that should work just dandy

I am somewhat offended by the too stupid to get out of jury comment, should one just lie to get out of it? Perhaps because I have a Criminal Justice BA or maybe I am a dork, but I actually liked jury duty the one time I got it. Of course I tried to get out of it but I wasn't going to lie. If I was on the Casey Anthony jury I would have caused the jury to hung. I do think both sides proved their cause. When listening to the defense's closing I had a feeling that she would get off, not on everything mind you. I do think the duct tape was pretty damming evidence though. To me the prosecution proved its cause with just that but not murder one.

P3orion- I agree with you. Well said. How much more evidence did the Jury need, anyway?? One Juror said there just wasn't enough to go on. What? I don't get it. It's like all the Jurors were brainwashed by themselves and did not see the "whole picture". I'm still baffled...

http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/docs/20110204143735newtruefalse.pdf"Most people never get a fair trial......."

I continue to be utterly amazed at the lack of basic, third-grade reading comprehension among the idiots commenting on this essay.

It does not appear Mr. Shapiro has spent a moment in criminal court proceedings.But who can argue with the bulletproof logic of, "It's stupid"?

Well, everyone, we have found the long lost accomplice to the horrible death of Caylee: Ben Shapiro. In his own words "Casey clearly murdered her daughter." The only way he could know this, given the complete lack of any physical evidence linking the mother to the child's death, was if he witnessed. You did witness, it, did you not Mr. Shapiro? That is the basis for your certitude, I presume.

In my opinion revamping the jury could be obtained by selecting jurors with at least an average IQ of 100 and two years of college studies. They would be previously tested by psychologists. I also believe that the outcome of Casey Anthony's trial reflects a hidden agenda of liberal lawyers/judicial system whose objective is abolishing the death penalty.I believe that some individuals who commit heinous crimes are a menace to society. I, therefore consider that the state, or civil government has the God-mandated obligation to keep law and order, and to safeguard its citizens against criminals thus sentencing them to death.I totally agree with Bruce Fein, JD, Constitutional Lawyer and General Counsel to the Center for Law and Accountability:"Individual Rights and Responsibility - The Death Penalty, But Sparingly," www.aba.org PRO: "The crimes of rape, torture, treason, kidnapping, murder, larceny, and perjury pivot on a moral code that escapes apodictic [indisputably true] proof by expert testimony or otherwise. But communities would plunge into anarchy if they could not act on moral assumptions less certain than that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west. Abolitionists may contend that the death penalty is inherently immoral because governments should never take human life, no matter what the provocation. But that is an article of faith, not of fact. The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor able to control his own destiny for good or for ill; it does not treat him as an animal with no moral sense."

There is a fundamental problem with the jury system in this country, though I'm not sure this case represents it. The main issue with jury trials is those that involve technical or scientific evidence. The simple fact is, many people just aren't smart enough to understand scientific evidence. Thus they vote based on "feelings" because they they get lost in all the tech-garble mucky-muck. Explaining the facts - the true scientific facts - in, say, a malpractice suit is often next to useless. One side can always bring out a few crackpot "scientists" to counter the other's arguments, and the validity of dais arguments is never questioned by the jury, because they don't know what concepts like "the scoentific method" and "peer-reviewed" and "double-blind testing" are. The simply take the word of any "expert" put on the stand if they have fancy-sounding credentials.A recent case in CT, in which a jury awarded $58 million to a plaintiff, had not one shred of scientific merit. But the jury FELT for them. More info here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/26/malpractice-recordn867439.htmlIn the Casey Anthony trial, you've got similar issues: the jury doesn't know that a cadaver dog's nose is much, much, much more sensitive than any human's - that if a cadaver dog says "dead body" it ain't mistaking it for an old pizza.I think, perhaps, that in cases involving scientific evidence there should be some kind of proof of understanding from potential jurors. Make them take a quiz. Or maybe, if they're truly to be "peers" of the defendant in a malpractice suit, they should all have MDs, or at least have Bachelor's degrees in a related science.

Yes, I would expect comments like these to come from a twenty-something who thinks he's experienced all the world has to offer, and hence can comment with the worldly wisdom of an Einstein, and, as is usually the case, ends up showing less intelligence than that of an ostrich.1. Juries are not made up of people too stupid to get out of it. Juries are made up of people who can afford to take the time away from work; for, alas, too many greedy companies won't pay someone for extended absences, even if it's to perform his or her civic duty.2. The Casey Anthony jury was the ONLY group of people qualified to render a decision. They were the only ones who heard and saw ALL of the testimony and evidence (or, apparently, the lack thereof) from start to finish. Anyone else who says he or she saw all of it too is either a liar, or is a couch potato to the extent that he or she should seek psychiatric help.3. As a society, we have regressed to the point where we love nothing more than watching someone get taken down, regardless of guilt or innocence. We crave violence. We watch it on TV every day. The 24/7/365 news channels make profits by extolling it and dramatizing it ad nauseum. This is the reason for this ridiculous notion that has become "the petition for Caylee's Law". If parents set one toe out of the mob majority's line, OFF WITH THEIR HEADS! IN PUBLIC! And Nancy Grace will lead the charge...and enjoy the publicity, ratings, and money, in the meantime.Ben, grow up, already. In case your parents didn't tell you, things on TV usually aren't what they seem.

So what's your solution? You didn't offer any. How exactly are we supposed to streamline trials? Here's an idea: Let's track and record everyone and then if a crime is committed a judge and jury can review the tapes and decide based on facts instead of conjecture and charisma. But people are too stupidly attached to worthless privacy for this common sense solution to be put into practice. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let us expose all the shadows in our society to the cleansing light of truth, or die because secrets are somehow more important to us than justice and survival.

Maria:There's arguably a constitutional problem with the "revamping" of the jury system you suggest.The Sixth Amendment guarantees a trial by an "impartial" jury. If it can be shown that more educated people tend on average to harbor certain political leanings, couldn't excluding the less-educated from service potentially implicate the impartiality of the panel?...Ironically given your stance on the death penalty, the over-educated actually tend to skew liberal, not conservative.~~~And on the subject of the death penalty... The material you quoted about how it is predicated upon respect for the moral agency of the accused is interesting, and I'm going to look into that futher.I'm not sure I'm convinced, though, that the state would be incapable of fulfilling its law and order and public safety obligations without the availability of the needle.My native Canada, for example, has a far lower rate of violent crime than the United States, and we abolished the death penalty about fifty years ago.Texas has a lot of crime, and also has the death penalty.Michigan also has a lot of crime, and that state abolished the death penalty before the Civil War.New Hampshire has a low crime rate and the death penalty.Vermont has a low crime rate, and they have abolished it....To my way of thinking, there's no clear relationship between the availability of the death penalty and the prevalence of violent crime.Moreover, I don't see how life in prison without possibility of parole isn't a suitable replacement for the ol' potassium chloride shot.

The 6th Amendment, as well as all other Amendments, apply to the states as well as the federal governments through their incorporation by the 14th Amendment. Furthermore, Duncan v. Louisiana (1968) and McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971) specifically applied the 6th Amendment right to a jury trial against the states. As to the multiple flawed arguments you used against Anthony's case, several other intelligent commentators here have refuted you enough, and I agree wholeheartedly with their beliefs that you are apparently fundamentally unable to understand why our justice system is set up like it is, much like your apparent hero Nancy Grace.

From juries that award millions of dollars to the wife of a chain smoker who died from, (surprise, surprise!) Lung cancer (Think that was also in FL---maybe they have heatstroke down there).OJ Simpson---To the latest travesty, of trying to pretend that lobotomies are a thing of the past, incompetent jurors are undermining the whole justice system. Perhaps there should be a LOGIC test or other deductive reasoning test to see if they are mentally qualified to sit on cases. There needs to be some significant changes. This jury causes me to feel physically nauseated---this is beyond incomprehensible!

Pretty funny that someone claims that jury trials should be eliminated, but doesn't even bother to look up the actual law. The writer states "Yes, jury trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution (although only with regard to federal cases)." How about we check our facts? The incorporation clause in the 14th Amendment applies the 6th Amendment, among others to the states. It is known as due process. Yet you try to get people to listen to you as a credible source. If you do not know the law and you are too lazy to bother to look it up, why should we listen to you?

This author is an idiot.Don't waste any more time reading his bs.

So, we should dismantle the jury system because the Anthony jury, who was subjected to media scrutiny of the case for 3 years, made a decision, with which you and the other crazies disagree? And, you use the word "stupid" to describe jurors, which is what the second-graders that I teach say about things that they don't like. Perhaps, you should consider becoming an expat and moving to Europe, where the justice systems are more to your liking. Rest assured, you would not be missed. Your rantings are those of a small child, who did not get his way. There's only one proper way to sum up your article: "Ignorance can be fixed; stupid is forever."

I have an even better. Let's resurrect the Star Chamber and British admiralty courts. Secret military tribunals for civilian crimes are so much more effective, aren't they Ben? Don't you support the troops enough to allow the Department of Defense to take a lead role in swiftly bringing an end to America's "war on crime?"

I absolutely believe that we should move to a panel of judges instead of a jury. In this day of ever growing CSI elements most juries have no way of understanding who to believe. It would also prevent 'courtroom antics' that are so rife these days -- think of how much quicker trials would be.

If you put a moron on a jury, he remains a moron. You can wrap him in the stars and strips and sing God bless America. He's still a moron. Put 12 morons on the same jury and you have a moronic jury likely to do anything.You can sing the praises of our system and it is good, but will never be any better than the people who serve.On this occasion our system let us down and a killer will walk free.

A wiser man than me once said..."Where justice is concerned, it is better for a guilty man to go free than for an innocent man to be punished."I would expect such a knee jerk reaction from a neocon, never let a good disaster go to waste. A chance to take away another basic civil liberty, eh Ben?

There are three simple things that could be done to fix the jury system in America:1) You get who you get. Each side of the trial having SO MANY pre-peremptory challenges to exclude jurors for no reason means that they hand-pick to make sure no one with a strong sense of justice gets within 200 feet of the jury room. The only reason for exclusion should be proven prejudice or personal involvement.2) Loosen the rules of evidence to allow more evidence to be admitted, especially evidence of prior bad acts related to the one in question. Some types of prior bad acts should ALWAYS be admissible, such as prior violent acts in a trial involving a violent act.3) Use standard jury instructions that include a statement about jury nullification.

I honestly think jurys should be done away with. Twelve ordinary people who generally don't have knowledge about the law, and are predisposed to making decision on way too many human factors. I think judges should be the only oneds able to maked a proper decision of guilty or not guilty. This last jury trial is a primary example how how many errors can be made by ordinary people. Twelve people is too many anyway, too much room for too many different views and the ability to come to an agreement is sometimes made just to avoid a hung jury because the 12 people just want to get it over with.

The 6th Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. says:In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to a speedy,public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. I think its time to redo the 6th Amentment and make it standard and consistent for a panel of judges to make these decisions from now on.Jurys of 12 average,normal(sometimes that's questionable) people bides too much room for error and bad decisions. They aren't trained, nor do the have the educational background to make such important decision, where judges do and are.

How can Ben Shapiro say these things without a doubt happened? Sure, we can be skeptical and have our opinions, but to publish statements of fact on issues that have not been proven shows just how amateur Ben Shapiro is. And to refer to the jurors as stupid is not only disrespectful, it is unprofessional. (Shapiro wrote “jury system,” but let’s face it — he’s talking about THIS particular group of jurors when he says “stupid.”) I agree that the system is broken. But I worry more about the countless innocent people who are jailed by a failed system than the few criminals who come out free.

I’m all for a Jury of My Peers but I think we've come to a point in this country where people have lost the ability to reason. Something must be done and my solution is to test potential jurors for logic and reasoning skills before selection. The same tests thin reasoning and logic that are administered to high school students throughout the country can be used with an outside agency grading them.

People here who agree with the jury, just did not pay attention to any of the trial and/or are using bumper sticker sayings they agree with on the macro. Such as “government over steps”, and the “founding fathers know best” and thus the jury system is great. The government is too big, however that does not change the fact this woman purposefully killed her child. We pay too much in taxes and have too many regulations. All true but the government did not railroad this woman. She would be unknown and had no problems with the government if she did not kill her child. We can argue about tax rates and the role of government, we can not argue over the obvious and let killers go because we refuse to use any logic or common sense. There was a fair trial just an unfair verdict from a jury that ignored the facts presented.

It's broken because of two high-profile cases? OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony represent the whole justice system? I'm sorry, but frankly this is just stupid.A judge is an even worse method. If judges decided cases, and the federal government had an agenda, it would be much easier for them to disregard the rule of law.I'm ashamed with America. The lynch mob crowd is more sociopathic than this careless and idiotic mother. There is a reason we have a right to a fair and speedy trial in this country.

Amen. What I've been saying since the verdict was read, only not so eloquently.

Ben, I agree with most of your points. I think we still need a jury but there needs to be a better selection proces. One thing for sure Casey Anthony did have a jury of her peers!!. She was obviously guilty the prosecution did a splendid job with the circustantial evidence. And > 2/3 of the world think she is guilty. It appear Caseys attorney swayed the jury. Everything they have said is from the mouth of Caseys attorney. They even thought her dad was involved. He was not on trial. This little girl did not kill herself and put herself with her winnie the pooh blanket in a swamp. What about the car? George wasnt driving the car. Did the jurors forget casey was out celebrating immediately after the death of her daughter.She was doing fine until caught by her mom who called 911. We rely on our jurys for justice so that we do not let murderers free to kill again. Casey Anthony may not kill again but I do believe she will do what it takes for her own personal gain which could include murder.This is a true American travesty with no justice for anyone. I will not spend any money to read about what the jury has to say. I dont really care. I will not watch any movies, interviews or read anything that will help anyone involved to gain financially from the death of an innocent 2 year old. Okay I have said my peace and plan to forget about Casey Anthony but plan to do my part to change the jury process. This should be a great country that we can be proud of. Not something that is fodder for trash magazines.

Pay jurors what they make per day in real life, then people would be more willing and able to serve. Those who don't have jobs can make the 12 bucks, and those that earn $200 or more per day could afford to serve.

Let's just have it based entirely on public opinion. That way, trials just become a massive popularity contest and if you're a nerd, nobody likes you, or the media does a good job of painting you as a villain, well sucks to be you.

Great article, Ben. I agree with every word. The Casey Anthony jurors were brainwashed by Baez that the state's witnesses and prosecutors were liars so they ignored all the state's witnesses and believed Baez unbelievable tale that Caylee drowned and George disposed of the body. They ignored the testimony of Dr. G who said it was a homicide, that 100 per cent of parents of drowning victims call 911 because they want to save the child, the skull was found with duct tape on the face and hair in a black plastic bag in a swamp, there was no reason for duct tape to be on a child's face and the testimony of Dr. Vass that he jumped back a few feet because the carpet sample from the trunk reeked of human decomposition and there was large amounts of chloroform in the trunk and all the other witnesses who smelled human decomposition. The prosecutors said no one makes an accident look like a murder. It makes no sense that George Anthony would allow his daughter to face execution if he knew it was an accident. If it was an accident, there would be no reason for Casey to lie for five months. She lied to prevent the body to be found with duct tape on the nose and mouth and chloroform in Caylee's system. These jurors sent a message that it is okay to kill your child as long as you lie until the body is skeletonized and there is no cause of death and then you can get away with it. Terrible miscarriage of justice.

First off, she was 'not guilty" and that's that, secondly jury duty is unconstitutional and the concept outdated. I believe things should be decided by a council, like in Japan.

The American jury system should be done away with.Standing trial before a panel of judges that know and understand the law results in fair trials. In any criminal trial the truth does not matter. The only thing that matters is what the jury BELIEVES. Many men have been wrongly convicted and lost years of their lives behind bars because of a jury's "OPINION" only to be proven innocent -years later- by DNA evidence. How many have been wrongly executed by what juries BELIEVE ? = We'll never know.

What proof did they have? I mean hard proof not "heresay".Circumstantial evidence is not enough.The Jury used what they were supposed to use "real evidence"Many innocent people are in Prison due to our flawed Justice system,I think more innocent in jail than guilty set free.

We must replace antiquated unfair jury system with computerized, fill in the facts. Duh... Lots of super stupid jurors who bring their personal baggage.

I have to disagree with you. The jury system is working for our country today. Casey Anthony was acquitted because the jury found a reasonable doubt in her case. What you said about Casey Anthony is a matter of opinion and does not match up with what happened, but follows YOUR OWN opinion.