To begin with, as far as I’ve always understood, a jury’s not supposed to consider the penalty when deliberating about guilt. The defendant’s guilty or not based on the evidence; you worry about punishment after you answer that question. If she’s saying that her findings of fact would have been different had a nonevidentiary variable been changed, then she’s actually practicing a subtle form of nullification here.
Allahpundit (for once) gets it right. That a juror had the punishment in the back of her mind is a sign that we just don't understand how our justice system is supposed to work.
Given that I specifically didn't pay any attention to the media firestorm that I couldn't avoid (like Tam), I still didn't hear anything other than plausible theories on how Caylee died - I'm sure I can come up with at least three implausible theories on my ownsome.
But were I on the jury, I would hope that the only thing I would have on my mind is the evidence presented that Casey Anthony killed her daughter, not whether the prosecution would try to execute her if found guilty.
I believe in jury nullification and I also believe the good uses will far outweigh the bad; but this is just stupid.
pm
No comments:
Post a Comment