Not Guilty? Outrage! There is outrage by reporters. There is outrage by the "celebrity" lawyers. There was outrage by the people outside the courtroom. Family, and friends of mine have expressed outrage.
Police officers have expressed outrage. I was taken aback by the verdict, but I can not say I was shocked.
You see we are judged by our peers, and from what I saw of the trial, on the make up of that jury, I would have to ask all the people who are outraged "What did you expect?"
Having outrage over a verdict isn't the right thing here folks. Outrage that a young girl is dead is a proper thing. Outrage over our court system is also proper. I think back to a saying I heard once in court. A defendant was speaking with his lawyer on a case I was not involved in. They were discussing which type of a trial they should take a bench (judge) or jury trial. At one point in the discussion the lawyer stated to his client "I think we should go ahead with a jury trial, then I only have to try a case before people who are too stupid to get out of jury duty." Is this how all lawyers think? I hope not, I hope that there are defense attorneys out there who believe in getting people falsely accused off, and prosecutors who will doggedly pursue justice for victims. I hope, but from what I have seen of this system let's just say I will not hold my breath.
We live in a society that glorifies violence and more and more shows a mistrust of law enforcement. We also live in a society that has done nothing to put in place a more effective type of judicial system. A jury of peers is a great concept, but just what is a peer? Peer is defined among other things as "a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status". So how do we try our accused under this premise? I would assume that you would try a criminal gang leader by sitting them in front of other criminal gang leaders. You would try accused police in front of other police. Obviously this would make the wheels of justice fall off. So we do the best we can, we call in random Americans, ask them questions (those that show up) and take the best of what we have. Most of these people who sit on these trials get all of their legal information directly from their televisions. Defense attorneys know this, that's why they try cases as if it were a television series. Jose Baez, head attorney on this case did an interesting trick here, he went with the misdirection play. Here we are at a murder trial and he brings up alleged sexual abuse by the Casey's father and brother to Casey. Suddenly we have a jury who is caught up in their favorite cop drama thinking about conspiracy, and tainted evidence, the reasonable doubt is there and will grow over time.
I'm not an expert on the judicial system, as my blog states I'm just throwing ideas out there and seeing what sticks, but it's time for us all to think of a more professional way of holding jury trials. I would start by making jurist an actual profession, make it a requisite to have a background in criminal justice. Hell maybe we could even have law students pay down some of their legal debt by sitting on the juries and gaining experience in the system before they graduate. We need to stop calling in people who 1. don't want to be there 2. don't know the legal system 3. will lie their way out of their duty if possible. Once we establish a professional system there should be judicial overview of jurist proficiency. If a verdict was obviously wrong in a panel of judges eyes those jurists most likely should not be invited back. Conversely jurists who perform well should be invited back time and again and even gain in pay.
The best thing I take from this whole thing is outrage shows America is a boiling point, which way will it turn out.
No comments:
Post a Comment