Thoughts on the Casey Anthony Verdict
Throughout this afternoon and evening, I’ve seen the TV, radio, and internet explode with everyone’s opinion on the Casey Anthony verdict that was announced today. I have an opinion as well, but it’s more on people’s reactions to the verdict.
This isn’t reality television.
When a new reality show begins, people are quick to pick favorites and least favorites. They hope that their chosen person remains until the end, and they invest time throughout the week tuning into the show, rooting for their chosen outcome. Because of the constant coverage by the media, I think this case evolved into something very similar to reality television.
No one tuning in to the news coverage actually had to participate in the actual jury deliberations. They didn’t sit through every hour of the trial, listening to every person’s testimony and observing every piece of evidence. They didn’t deliberate with the other jurors, knowing that they would be determining the fate of someone else’s life. But we all came to an opinion (probably the same opinion) about this case. We didn’t know the victim. Nor do we know the woman on trial or the family and friends that were affected by this tragedy. Somehow, though, we suddenly had something invested in the outcome, and we knew we would be outraged with any outcome other than the one we wanted.
Thankfully, there’s no opportunity for the public to dial-in their opinion at the end of a trial. Verdicts are decided by a jury of one’s peers, not by public opinion. While we may still think that Casey Anthony is guilty, I think we should be thankful that we don’t use public opinion to decide these sorts of things.
There’s a system in place to keep things fair.
There’s a process in our judicial system to prevent jurors from involving their “gut feelings” and emotions. When a jury is selected, people who already have an opinion on the case are weeded out. It wouldn’t be a fair trial if the jury had already come to a conclusion before the trial even began. Odds are, we all would have been tossed out of this trial’s jury selection, and that would have made complete sense.
I’m guessing the jury selection took a really long time for this trial, because many of us had already seen the news coverage and thought that she was guilty. (On a local note, the jury selection for the Anthony Sowell case took weeks. Why? Because everyone had already concluded he’s guilty, so they could no longer serve on the jury. It was probably tough finding people without an opinion, considering the huge media coverage. That’s the price you pay when you want a fair trial.) Having an opinion on a case before it goes to trial doesn’t mean you’re wrong. But it does mean that you’re not suited to be on that jury.
They must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The jury’s verdict today did not say that Casey Anthony is innocent. Instead, she was not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There’s a big difference between the two. She may in fact be guilty. However, the jurors felt that the evidence presented during the trial still left some reasonable doubt that she could be innocent. We can list off all of the various pieces of evidence and testimony that we saw throughout the past few weeks, but if the jury still found a reason to believe that she could be innocent, they could not have handed over a guilty verdict.
This was no small decision, and I think it’s unfair to question their judgement, since we depend on this judicial system set-up every day, whether the case is televised or not. Another person’s life was in their hands, and they had to make the final decision.
There are injustices.
Perhaps a guilty person walked free today. That’s a very real possibility. But think of the alternative. What if, despite there being some reasonable doubt, she was found guilty and sentenced to death or life in prison? What if, despite all of the evidence presented against her, she was innocent after all? Now I’m not saying that this happened in this case, but then again, I’m in no position to actually have a position on this subject. But what if an innocent person’s life was ended, the result of an unfair trial?
These things actually happen, and it probably happens more than our country would like to admit. I’ve read articles about people sentenced to life in prison or awaiting the death penalty who, after 10, 20, or 30 years into their sentence, are released from prison. They were found guilty when they were actually innocent. Suddenly, DNA evidence was discovered or a witness’s testimony was found to be false, and the individual can finally walk free. What is a worse crime for our judicial system (and our society) to commit? Finding innocent people guilty, or finding guilty people not guilty? I would take the latter over the former any day.
Check out The Innocence Project for profiles of far too many people who were found guilty and served time for crimes they did not commit.
Jury duty deserves more respect.
Think of how many times you’ve heard people complain about jury duty. It’s seen as some nuisance that everyone tries to finagle out of. If you’re upset about the outcome of this case, though, hopefully you can serve on a jury sometime soon. I’ve never had the experience, but I look forward to the day when I get the chance. Not all cases will be as publicized or serious as this one, but being able to contribute to a fair trial should be considered a huge accomplishment for an individual.
Lastly, if you haven’t seen 12 Angry Men, I highly recommend it. I think it can provide a glimpse into a jury’s deliberations, and the reasonable doubt that can be discovered in an otherwise straightforward case. Plus, it’s a classic.
July 6, 2011