I have gone back and forth, and back and forth, and back again on this subject. I wish I was burning calories...
I am trying to understand the jury from "their" point of view and not mine. I know that I have the advantage of ALL information and they did not. I know that I have been in litigation management for 30 years and I am not swayed by "theatrics"...unless backed by reasonable or demonstrative evidence... I.e. FACTS.
As much as I want to smash a plate after I have written the name of each juror on it, I eventually pity the jury. I pity them because they were played by the "perfect storm" of 1) our judicial system that seeks not the "whole truth and nothing but the truth" by excluding all facts. 2) A cast of characters willing to commit perjury. 3) Our culture that creates celebrity from infamy 4) They were born with the traits that landed them on this jury in the first place...the primary trait being easily seduced. They were seduced by the passion exhibited by JB ( he told us things we never knew=intimacy ).
I tried to pacify myself by envisioning that this jury was a sort of collective Snow White who ate the poisonous apple, even as so many of us watching the story wanted to jump in and scream "Don't eat the Apple!!!!"
I don't want them all to burn in hell... they are very much a victim of the perfect storm, and to the extent that each of them lacked the will, or courage of conviction, I think their conscience will crucify them in a way that should be reserved for Casey.
I hope that one day...they find Peace. It as taken me many bottles of wine to get to this point, and each time one of them speaks...I must begin my process again. it's not pretty. I don't rate them vey high.
Excellent post :rocker:
I too think a primary failure on the part of the jury was courage to take responsibility. Too many excuses were given by the ones who've spoken up. That begs, big time. I think the jury felt victimized from the get go. That's the impression I get from their statements. Like they were offended and frightened to be put in the place of having to give a verdict on such a tough case.
It reminds me of accepting a job, signing your job description, and then whining because the job is too hard, or takes too much time.
Of course many of the jurors did not WANT this job. Maybe a jury of conscripts will become a bad an idea as a military of conscripts?
Hmmm, I really wonder about this?
Certainly, for the juror Jennifer Ford, who expressed desire to be on the jury, my example above fits. She wanted to be on the jury, then whined about how hard and unfair it was.
I haven't been charged with making this kind of decision, in my life. I gotta give the jury THAT, they have one big one up on me.
The thing is, we don't always get to choose. Being a member of this society demands we present for and do jury duty if chosen. Folks OUGHT to rise to the occasion, and most of the time they do. They grit their teeth and put themselves and their preferences aside to do the job the right way.
Maybe the answer is not "professional juries" but volunteer juries? I know there would be a whole new set of problems with that (ie, a dearth of volunteers
). The candidates could be chosen and voire dire'd per usual, but in the end you'd have a group of people willing to put up with what they must, challenge themselves past their comfort zones, etc etc. Or, at least more willing.
