07 July 2011

On Judgement

I, like many of you, have been fascinated by the outcome of the Casey Anthony trial. I didn't have the visceral reaction of many, and I'm not consumed with an overwhelming conviction that a miscarriage of justice has occurred.

If anything, the outcome of the case reassures my faith in the justice system. It seems that the jurors were very uncomfortable with the choice that they had to make. They simply felt that the evidence was not sufficient to support a guilty verdict.

I served on a jury for a case that was very simple. The deliberations were quick, and no one really doubted the choice to be made. Despite this fact, we all were impressed by the responsibility placed upon us to decide correctly according the the law and the facts as they were presented to us.

I agree completely with this op-Ed from today's WSJ, written by well-known attorney Alan Dershowitz. It is worth reading.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad


Anonymous said...

The Dershowitz piece is probably the most intelligent thing I have seen or heard since this verdict was rendered. I did not know anything about this trial other than it was going on and was stunned at the response it generated. I apparently was in the minority. The Scots "not proven" is an interesting concept and I wonder how it would play out in the U.S. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Jlowryjr said...

I like that terminology. It would help people understand, but it also might be better suited to a system where double jeopardy might apply. Is that the case for Scotland?

Adhis said...

I was not surprised that she was found 'not guilty' of murder. I was shocked that she was found 'not guilty' of child abuse or neglect.

For goodness' sake, parents have been charged for leaving their baby alone at home while they go party elsewhere overnight. Why cannot this "mother" be charged, at minimum, for not being concerned where her child was for 31 days?