Casey Anthony walked free today, disappearing on a chartered flights to parts unknown. Unknown for now, anyway, but such things are seldom mysterious for long. Ms. Anthony needs money too badly to remain a recluse longer than a few weeks. Her story is her only means of support it seems, so, alas, we've not heard the last of her.
Comparisons to OJ abound, but I think they're inapt. OJ, was, after all, famous, wealthy, a symbol of success and the recipient of a great deal of admiration. He was also, arguably, a recipient of the benefits of jury nullification. Did the jury really doubt his guilt? Were they convinced his long ride in that Bronco was intended to bear him away from persecution? It is possible, perhaps, but I don't really believe that.
Casey Anthony, on the other hand, had little to recommend her. The recipient of no awards, she showed no particular promise, and her fall was only from the curb to the gutter. Perhaps I exaggerate--I say this with no detailed knowledge of her background and rely rather on my impression of such bits of the trial as I have seen. But the death of her child is the source of her only celebrity, certainly. No cause could have been served by her acquittal save her own. Her jury therefore should be taken at their word when saying that they did not believe her guilt had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
So, reasonable doubt. That's what the talk has been about since. The words do not appear in the constitution. They were only finally given genuine authority by the Supreme Court in 1970, and then only by the way, not as the central focus of the case. They were hung upon the "due process" clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. As standards go, this strikes me as a good one. The jury system is, like all human beings, not flawless. We can only ask that juries conclude within the limits common to all reasonable persons.
But alas, we live in unreasonable times. We've not heard a lot from the jurors; for the sake of argument, I'm going to extend what little we have heard to the rest as representative of their view of things. In short, they feel sick, just sick, about all of it. They believed Casey Anthony guilty but felt the prosecution didn't prove it sufficiently. They wish the prosecution had done a better job, so they could hang her as she deserved.
So, they believed her guilty. Were I able, I would ask them: how did you come to that conclusion? Was it what you heard in the courtroom during your weeks of listening and observing? If so, do you not count yourselves as reasonable?
Perhaps not. Too many episodes of CSI where chemistry yields all. At the moment we enjoy more information, more easily accessible, than at any time in the history of the planet. My phone holds more than all the scrolls at Alexandria. So if a thing is a fact, it is recorded; it is deduced; it is cataloged. It brooks no doubt whatsoever.
I think it is fair to ask whether, whatever standard these jurors applied, it could result in a conviction anywhere at anytime. After all, if there is no room for a simple human estimate of guilt, then the entire adversarial system can henceforth be replaced, with a simple review of the chemistry.
No comments:
Post a Comment