...Than For One Not Guilty Person to be Convicted

Here I go again. Once again I find myself sitting here about to complain. What is it this time? The Casey Anthony trial is the short answer. Actually it's not the trial itself or even the verdict. It's the reaction to the verdict. I know this trial was on T.V. and that thousands of people watched at least part of it (I am not among that number). However many thousands tuned in I doubt very much that anyone other than the jury, the judge, the prosecutors and the defense team heard and saw every piece of evidence that was presented.

It is painfully obvious that school systems across the United States need to bring back Civics as a core requirement. I was taught in school that our judicial system is set-up so that it is better for ten guilty people to go free than for one not guilty person to be convicted. This might sound stupid to most people and to a degree it is. It's stupid right up to the point where you're the not guilty person.

Juries do not find defendants innocent. They find defendants either guilty or not guilty. Just because a jury finds a defendant not guilty does not mean that the defendant was innocent. It merely means that the jury did not find enough evidence to convict.

All juries are charged with weighing all of the evidence and testimony that was presented to them and to come to a verdict based on that alone. If they are to come to a guilty verdict they must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Take notice what that says. It doesn’t say up to a reasonable doubt. It says beyond. It means that before voting guilty a juror must know in their heart that the accused did the crime. No matter how heinous the crime it is not a jury’s job to see that the victim gets justice. That’s the job of the prosecutor. The prosecutor must present a case to the jury that convinces them so fully that they cannot possibly vote for acquittal.

When a trial begins the accused is to be considered not guilty by each and every juror. If after all of the evidence is presented and the closing arguments are made a juror is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did the crime then, and only then, should they vote to convict. They should not and must not vote to convict if they feel that the defendant probably did the crime. If you have a feeling about something you’re not convinced.

Since the verdict in this case came down on July 5, 2011 I have witnessed on social media outlets a backlash against the jury. People have been crying out that justice for Caylee has been denied. Their fury is misdirected. If their outrage should be directed at anyone in this case it should be at the prosecutors. The prosecutors didn’t present the jury a convincing enough case that left it with any choice but to acquit.

The day after the verdict juror number 3, Jennifer Ford, said on ABC News "I did not say she was innocent," but also, "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be." Another juror, juror number 2 is quoted in the St. Petersburg Times as saying "everybody agreed if we were going fully on feelings and emotions, she was done”. “I just swear to God...I wish we had more evidence to put her away. I truly do...But it wasn't there." It is obvious that the jurors took their responsibility very seriously. And that is as it should be.