Casey Anthony
Amazingly, it appears that Casey Anthony will be trying out for the Baltimore Ravens...
Making the news is always a good time. And I don't just mean that public indecency charge.I think that she can make it. She's got that killer instinct that teams are looking for.
-Chairman
5 comments:
This Casey Anthony trial has me once again wondering about "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." I wasn't on the jury, so I didn't hear all the evidence. But regardless, the idea of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is always subjective.
Another interesting thing is the role of the jury foreman. I strongly believe that a charismatic foreman can oftentimes swing the jury one way or the other.
If I ever get bored and go serve on a jury, I'd conduct a little experiment to see if I could sway a jury, without being the foreman. I like to think that I could :-)
I would actually suggest that reasonable doubt is actually pretty objective - probably as objective as you can really get. As soon as you slide away from that high standard, then everything becomes entirely subjective.
The fact that juries can still get it wrong, even with the instructions for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, suggests that if you're into this whole justice thing, then you should err on the side of caution. I'm guessing that our guy Curran is someone whose opinion may be interesting here.
I agree that the idea of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is pretty objective. Most people can tell whether or not they have any reasonable doubts about something.
However, I'm referring to how two different jurors can observe the same trial and come to different conclusions about whether or not they have reasonable doubt. Heck, two jurors could basically agree on everything except for one witness. Juror A thinks this witness is honest and removes any doubt that a conviction is justified. Whereas Juror B is troubled that this witness seemed nervous, confused, and thus unreliable.
I'm not saying anything is wrong with our current jury system. Just saying that two different people looking at the same evidence differently is common and to be expected. And a persuasive foreman (or Chairman) could add yet another dimension to how jurors view the evidence.
Although, I doubt the Chairman would ever be on jury as that would be admitting he has peers. ;-)
To clarify, in my original comment I stated that "the idea of 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' is always subjective." So I am backing off that comment. The idea is pretty objective. It's just how people arrive at that place that can oftentimes be subjective, in my opinion.
Maybe, but I'd suggest that if the prosecution either a) has an argument that hinges on one witness, or b) can't cleanly knock down a defense witness, then that trial should have never seen the light of day.
And as for whether or not I believe that I have peers, that's sort of tangential. If I get called to serve on a jury, and I get a cool enough case that would motivate me to get through the voire dire process, I'd make a go of it. Of course, my platform is pretty much "Vote Guilty in 2011."
Post a Comment