Sunday, July 17, 2011

appointed juries?

Seems like we always find some goofy ideas under any old wet rock after a controversial jury decision like that of the Casey case.

One columnist wondered aloud whether we should consider professionally appointed juries. I spoke to this issue early on, giving the jury credit for a fair decision. The jurors acted on what they heard, and I think they acted responsibly. What a shame that people are in an uproar now simply because they didn't get the verdict they wanted. I remember when that happened in the OJ Simpson case. People were angry at Simpson because he got off, when they should have been angry with the Prosecutor for letting him get off. It all starts with good police work. Prosecutors then work with what they have. And the jury then responds with what it sees and hears.

Instead of suggesting that juries be professionally appointed, how about considering the appointment of prosecutors rather than having voters choose them. One state claims this has made a major difference. Let's face it, prosecutors run for office on the number of notches in their belts. Convictions are key.

An appointed Prosecutor may make a whole lot more sense than an appointed jury.

No comments: