What do you think, MJ? On Jul 13, 8:03 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Three Cheers for the Casey Anthony Jurorsby Butler Shaffer > Every once-in-awhile events occur that provide some optimism thatrealpeople – > rather than the sock-puppets who speak on behalf of institutional interests – > have a firm grip on reality. The jury in the Casey Anthony trial > didpreciselywhat they were directed to do by the court: deliberated on the > evidence presented to them, and concluded that there was not the requisite > degree of certitude to allow them to find this woman guilty of the murder > charges brought against her. > This was more than the percaled agents of "justice" could take. They know a > "guilty" person when they see one: it’s whoever is charged with a crime by > the state! The cable-TV bobbleheads – let’s call them Dennis Dullard and > Amelia Airhead – began screaming for vengeance, . . . not so much against Ms. > Anthony, but against thejurors!Their screeches of rage were echoed by other > lobotomized voices, one of whom urged doing away with the jury system > altogether. Charles Dickens’ Madame Defarge was resurrected! Another shrieked > at the "idiots on the jury," while another asked the most irrelevant question > as it pertained to this defendant: "who killed Caylee then?" > It was not the role of thejurorsto find Caylee’s killer (if, indeed she was > killed rather than dying accidentally). It is the function of thepoliceto > search for causal evidence and present it to prosecuting attorneys. If the > prosecution concludes that there is "probable cause" to charge a defendant > with a crime, it will do so, leaving to the jury the task of deciding > whether, "beyond a reasonable doubt," there was sufficient evidence to > convict the defendant. Thejurorsdid what they were supposed to do, what the > judge ordered them to do. If their critics want to blame someone for Casey’s > being found not guilty, they should focus on those whofailedat their assigned > task: the functionaries of thestate!If blame is to be found, it can more > readily be said that police investigators and prosecuting attorneys were > unable to fulfill their roles. To blame the jurors who, by their verdict, > said "you have not convinced us," is as irrational as a murderer blaming his > victim for spilling his blood on his carpeting! Those who talk of abolishing > the jury system would be better advised to urge abolishing the prosecution of > criminals! > Perhaps Dennis spent too many of his high school years in "drivers ed" > classes, while Amelia was at cheerleader’s practice on the day the legal > system was discussed in civics class. Whatever the explanation, they knew > what is foremost in the minds of all men and women of statist persuasion:the > proof of a defendant’s guilt is found in the fact that he or she is charged > with a crime!What more needs to be asked? How can "enquiring minds" be > expected to give up such more pressing inquiries as the identity of the next > "American Idol"? > I have no defense to make of Casey Anthony as a person or a mother. I don’t > know that much about her to make any such judgment. Her alleged failure to > notify anyone of Caylee’s being missing until thirty-one days later does not > impress me as the epitome of responsible motherhood. But the jury was not > assigned the task of judging this woman’s character. They understood what > Dennis and Amelia did not: individuals are responsible for the consequences > of their actions. In a world in which we have become accustomed to dealing > with one another in highly abstract ways, it is easy for any of us to express > opinions – or courses of action – without feeling any sense of responsibility > for what we have put in motion. > Don Boudreaux offered a powerful example of the adverse consequences of > living in a world of abstractions. He spoke of the differences between the > wartime experiences of soldiers on the ground – who have to shoot, bayonet, > or throw hand grenades at their victims – and bomber pilots who may kill more > than the foot-soldier, but whose acts appear to them only as distant "puffs > of smoke." While Dennis and Amelia saw the implications of their commentaries > as little more than "puffs of smoke," the jurors were required to daily > confront Casey Anthony, face-to-face, and determine her life-or-death fate. > In another case in which they had not been picked to sit in judgment of a > defendant, some of these jurors might have been as impressed by Dennis and > Amelia’s post-trial babblings as was your cousin Louise in Schenectady. But > on this day, they made the choice to liveresponsibly. The words of one of the > jurors, Jennifer Ford, should give encouragement that many of our neighbors > can rise above the Madame Defarge lynch-mob mindset. As Ms. Ford so well > expressed it: "If they want to charge and they want me to take someone’s > life, they have to prove it. They have to prove it, or else I’m a murderer > too." > Neither Dennis nor Amelia will have the slightest appreciation for Ms. Ford’s > remarks. They will likely accuse her of being "soft on crime," or a > "terrorist sympathizer," as they head for the hardware store for more > rope!http://lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer240.html
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
