Click here to add the
Porcelain Theology RSS feed

Do Jurors Have A Right To Privacy?

Labels: ,

Have you ever come home from work looking to just kick back and relax, but before you do, you opt check the postal mail and see that official-looking envelope staring right back at you?

Your stomach starts to feel a little uneasy as you hesitantly begin to open the letter and dreading what might be inside. You then unfurl the folded contents within with a slightly shaky hand and realize that your worst fear has come true. Yep... YOU'VE GOT JURY DUTY.

Without a good enough lie and with no other way to get out of it, you're going to have to report to your local -- or God forbid -- your nearby federal courthouse. All you can do is hope that your name doesn't get called, but if you do get called, that they don't like something about you and that you're services will no longer be needed.

But as luck would have it, they DO like you and they want YOU to serve on their time-wasting, embarrassingly low-pay jury. FUCK!!!

You didn't ask for this, but the law says you've gotta do it. Ugh...

I once had a co-worker who decided that he was too busy at work to be bothered with jury duty that day. He then got a not-so-friendly phone call telling him that if he didn't show up within a half hour, a state police car would be summonsed, he would be placed in handcuffs and then they would drive him from the workplace to courthouse. I must say that I've never seen someone leave the building so fast.

So now you've been kindly 'asked' to serve on a jury and you find out it's going to be this high profile case that the entire country will be watching. Your life now for the next month-plus is going to be eating, drinking and shitting this case. How fun.

Since you are now totally hosed and have no choice but to do your civil duty, you decide that you'll be the best darn impartial juror you can be.

During your particular case, the prosecution presents a shabby argument, is unable to prove an actual murder took place, presented various disputable evidence and could provide no real motive whatsoever.

You and the other 11 other jurors now have no choice but to go by the book and determine that this accused person -- while unlikeable, irresponsible and not especially believable -- is 'Not Guilty' because no guilt could actually be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision doesn't mean that you believe that this person is innocent, but that no one can be reasonably certain that they actually committed a serious crime.

Little do you know that upon the announcement of your collective decision that the outside world now thinks you are the stupidest people on Earth and just made the worst decision in the history of bad decisions -- or at least the worst decision since 1995.

The average person is outraged because they don't have to apply the law to how they feel nor do they have to digest all of the details of the case that you did. Their emotions dictate their conclusions about the case and those conclusions don't actually have to be founded in fact or be put up against a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard. Plus, it doesn't help that the media had convinced everyone of this person's guilt all along.

Luckily, the judge of your trial worries about your well-being and decides that he's going to withhold all of your names so that you won't be exposed to death threats or worse. The problem is that some news organizations don't really care about your well-being and want to get all of your names in print for every unstable kook to harass you, threaten you or even harm you. Is that really fair to a jury who were legally bound to to perform their civil duty? Of course it's not.

The point here is that folks on this Casey Anthony jury -- regardless of how people felt about their decision -- were forced by law to be on that jury. They didn't elect to be part of this media circus and were never interested in being part of the story. They were simply doing their duty -- the very same duty that most of us have been or will be asked to do at some point in our lives.

Now if some of the jurors want to be bold enough and put themselves out there for public consumption, that's on them. But I'm sure that some folks on that jury just want to go back to living a normal life again and if they do, shouldn't they be allowed that right?

Until today, I had no idea that it is normal procedure to release the names of a jury right after a trial concludes. I understand that it's done so that our legal system is open and honest, but the idea that some news organizations are trying to get these names out into the media ASAP seems irresponsible to say the least.

After all, should one of those jurors actually be harmed by some kook who invested way too much emotion into this case, who would actually benefit from that? The same people who want to put these jurors' names out there, of course. The media would have another big story and they wouldn't feel the least bit guilty about glorifying it as they do with every tragedy.

In my opinion, there should be an extended window of time for all jurors' names to be publicly released to ensure the safety of those who serve. Until the next media obsession comes along to erase this case from 99% of our short-term memories, these poor people may be in danger.

And if something did happen to one of these jurors or their families, who would ever want to be a juror on the next high-profile, highly-charged case? Would jurors begin to quietly begin wonder about their own well-being if they made an unpopular decision? If the seed of concern actually took root in some jurors' minds, outcomes of future cases could be affected.

While multiple states are now swiftly drafting a "Caylee Anthony Law" as we speak all because of the sour grapes about the decision in this case, you won't likely see anyone drafting a law to protect the identities and the well-being of these jurors due to their highly unpopular 'Not Guilty' decision. Who is going to be eager to protect those innocent people and look out for their best interest? If the media is able to get their way, no one at all.

Casey Anthony Jury Gets It Right


Things we learned today:

1. The justice system actually works
2. Most people presume guilt over innocence
3. People really, really need lives

Whether you agree with the decision in the Casey Anthony trial or not, ultimately the correct decision was made by the jury. Wait, what?!?!

That doesn't mean that Casey Anthony didn't kill her daughter, but the evidence proving that she commmited murder simply wasn't there. As of today, all we know is that no one really knows. Of course, a lot of people think they know and that's why we have all of this silly outrage today.

In some ways, it was actually fun to watch the internet lose its collective mind today over all this. The media had snookered so many people into believing that this trial/circus was just a necessary procedure before Casey Anthony was sent to the gas chamber. Whoops! All this did was cause a virtual lynch mob of crazy people who invested WAY too much of their time and emotion into this trial.

One of the main reasons that people were so caught off guard by the verdict is because it's human nature to presume guilt over innocence. Let's be honest, the second we saw Casey Anthony's mugshot and heard what she was accused of, we all thought to ourselves, "That is the woman killed who her daughter." Then some of us thought, "Yeah, I'd do her." But none of us ever really thought, "That is the woman who is accused of killing her daughter and she might actually be innocent."

Luckily, the standard in our court system is just the opposite of how we are prone to think. And with that being the standard in our legal system and not who is simply a crummy person in general, it should then be no surprise that the jury deemed Casey Anthony 'Not Guilty' today.

Do people honestly think that they know better than the 12 jurors who had to sit through weeks and weeks of this entire proceeding? These folks were forced to endure every last detail of this trial, but somehow THEY are the ones who got it wrong while the long list of lifeless couch potatoes, random internet posters and B-list celebs who all rushed to their Twitter accounts to voice their outrage are actually the real legal experts concerning this case? LOL, c'mon...

So now we now have a nation full of bleeding hearts (with blood-thirsty rage) over this trial, but what gets me is that every single day when you pick up your local paper or watch your local news, countless murders, deaths, rapes, assaults, etc. are reported and the vast majority of us don't even flinch at those stories. Where are all the tears and anger for all of the average, every day deaths, murders, etc. that the media doesn't glorify in this obscene manner? Do they really matter any less? And if they don't, why do we care so much less about those?

Personally, the ONLY thing I care about is if someone in our country is accused of murder and no one saw them do it, the prosecution sure as shit better be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt because that is what our justice system demands. If it was you or I who was falsely accused of a crime, we would all hope that a jury would not let their own human nature decide our fate, but base it on the actual evidence brought against us, no?

Today, the only things we know for sure is that the justice system still occasionally works and that Nancy Grace is still an idiot.