DISQUS

tidbits · 6 months ago

To paraphrase: Trial by jury is the worst system in the world, except for all the others. Verdicts don't always come out the way the public, or reporters, think they should (OJ and Robert Blake come to mind), but that's part of the deal. Innocent people get convicted as well, some of whom end up on death row or spending decades in prison.

What I'd like to know before passing judgment on the jurors is: what was the actual evidence presented to them; what evidence was excluded on Constitutional grounds; did any juror report any discussion indicating bias during their deliberations; was there any coercion during jury deliberations; what was the talent level of the attorneys for the prosecution and for the defense.

This could be, may well be, a case of ethnic/racial prejudice, but, at this point that is an assumption based on the outcome of the case, not the specifics presented during trial or reports on jury deliberation.

In addition to the other cases cited in the article with tougher sentences, how many cases during the same time frame got lesser sentences, were acquitted or copped pleas to light sentences in connection with violent incidents? Also, what were the criminal backgrounds of those who got tough sentences, compared to those in the case that is the focus of the article? The list of other cases in the article looks like it might be cherry picked (not an assumption, just a suspicion).

I don't dispute that the author "could" be, may well be, correct in his assumptions, but they are assumptions at this point. A good investigation is probably in order by neutral authorities. Jumping to conclusions probably isn't.