Casey Anthony: Why we need professional jurors and not idiot jurors

Casey Anthony acquitted because of dumb jurors. Photo via Photobucket.

Casey Anthony was acquitted Tuesday on all counts of killing her toddler daughter, Caylee — a verdict that stunned many, with most thinking that she would at least get some sort of lesser murder charge if not 1st degree. Theories are already running rampant as to why the jury found the defense team’s argument that Casey was a liar and slut but not a killer to be more credible somehow than her deplorable and dishonest actions after her daughter went missing and was ultimately found dead.

Casey didn’t cry or try to find her daughter, instead she told the police officers lies and went about her business, participating in hot body contests and partying with her friends. Do actions speak louder than words? As the prosecution put it, who makes an accident look like a murder? The answer is that of common sense — nobody.

Some of the reasons the media has speculated that the jury acquitted Casey Anthony have been a sad indictment of our legal system. The theories are as disappointing as the verdict itself. It makes me wonder, why do we have ordinary citizen jurors, with their own agendas to push. Why not give this important job to professional jurors? By professional, I mean those with a law backgrounds, forensic backgrounds and of whom get paid real wages and not just a few bucks a day? If you’ve ever heard the running joke about jurors — it’s that juries are made up of people who are not smart enough to get out of jury duty. I think the Anthony trial gives us a good example of that. You get laymen people who don’t understand the letter of the law or who are swayed by completely shallow reasons or worse yet, political ideals, and you get a non-partial jury who may side with a killer on principle.

Some of the speculations made by the media include:

1) The jury had a hard time convicting such an attractive woman.

Translation: Jurors are stupid and star struck and they want pretty people to like them, even if beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Casey Anthony doesn’t do anything for me. She has pointy ears and a long face. Hey Casey, why the long face?

2) The prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence.

Translation: The jurors must have honed their legal expertise from the schools of  “CSI” and “Law and Order” and think that unless someone sees another person actually murdering someone, then it didn’t really happen. Truth is, the majority of murder cases are based on circumstantial evidence as most people don’t kill others when witnesses are present.

3) The defense provided enough reasonable doubt.

Translation: The jurors think that reasonable doubt means that if it’s anyway conceivable, it must be real! So, if the defense were to say that Caylee was abducted by aliens and nobody has disproved that aliens exist, there is your reasonable doubt!

4) The Jury was too liberal and doesn’t believe in an “eye for an eye.”

Translation: The jurors just took a big, gigantic shit on the legal system, deciding that nobody should be held accountable for their actions because prison was not designed for punishment.

5) The jury are among those who believe children are disposable and of lesser value than adults, i.e.; if you kill an adult, you have committed evil. Kill a child, and you’ve destroyed something that wasn’t paying taxes anyway. If a mother kills their child, it’s her right.

Translation: Like Andrea Yates, when a mother kills her child, it’s because she needs 0ur support and sympathy, not our scorn and judgement.

I say, eff all that! Can we please get some jurors who are unbiased and intelligent? Just because people find an ugly slut attractive, doesn’t absolve that ugly slut of guilt.

A few years ago, Concurring Opinions offered these reasons for picking professional jurors over the uninformed and uneducated general public:

First, it is ridiculous that juries are basically taught the law after hearing the facts of the case. If one is applying a rule, shouldn’t one know about the rule first in order to determine which facts are relevant and which are not?

Second, it takes law students three years to learn the law — or at least a semester to learn a specific subject like torts — and yet juries are expected to understand the law after just one brief lecture from the judge. Who are we kidding when we think that the jury is really applying the law? Juries probably have little to no idea about what the law is.

So we have a woman walking free for what she is now acquitted of — killing a defenseless toddler and why? Is there no room for common sense anymore? Are these jurors waiting on their 15 minutes of fame? Were they promised something in return? Whatever the reason, it’s a dishonor to Caylee and the whole legal process in general. If this woman can’t get a judgement, who can? Makes me wonder why we bother with civilian jurors who can’t find it in their hearts and minds to do the right thing by the victim.