The names of the Casey Anthony jurors were just released to the public, or perhaps more accurately the media.  The tabloid and tabloid-like press immediately made a beeline for their homes, where quite unshockingly, they could not find any of them.

 

The consensus on Free Republic seems to be that they should not have been named, which surprised me a little.  I'm curious as to what the take is here.

 

IMNSHO, this can pervert the justice system.  How long before the smart lawyer of a notorious defendant moves to overturn a conviction based on the jurors being potentially concerned about becoming "notorious" themselves for doing their duty as they see it?

 

I'd say it's no different from releasing the names of who voted for whom in an election.  Indeed, I'm getting concerned about the future of the secret ballot in this nation, for this and other reasons.

 

 

Yeah, I don't know the rationale for releasing the names, but I agree that they should remain anonymous. If, after the trial is over, they choose to come out and identify themselves, they have had the ability to make that choice for themselves.

 

I have to tell you, if I'm on jury duty and I think I'm going to be chosen for a jury on a 'notorious' trial like that, I'm doing whatever I can to get out of it...including slamming my hand in a door, stating my unequivocal love for the defendant (male or female), refusing to wear pants...whatever.

Yeah, I don't know the rationale for releasing the names, but I agree that they should remain anonymous. If, after the trial is over, they choose to come out and identify themselves, they have had the ability to make that choice for themselves.

 

I have to tell you, if I'm on jury duty and I think I'm going to be chosen for a jury on a 'notorious' trial like that, I'm doing whatever I can to get out of it...including slamming my hand in a door, stating my unequivocal love for the defendant (male or female), refusing to wear pants...whatever.

 

Ever see the Curb your Enthusiasm ep where Larry claims to be racist to get out of jury duty?  classic...

^ No I'm stubbornly refusing to watch Curb, mainly because my mother in law keeps raving about it and telling me I 'have' to see it. But that's the same line of thinking that I'm going for.

You just need to claim some kind of condition that prevents you from sitting for long periods of time that nobody would desire to confirm (like hemroids).

 

As to the OP's question, absolutely not.  I feel sorry for the Casey Anthony jurors.  Anybody who knows anything about criminal procedure knows that the jurors rendered the proper verdict in this case.  They didn't follow their "gut" as the prosecutor or Nancy Grace would have had them do.  They followed the law and they are heroes for protecting the system (not necessarily the defendant) in the face of such enormous public pressure.

You just need to claim some kind of condition that prevents you from sitting for long periods of time that nobody would desire to confirm (like hemroids).

 

As to the OP's question, absolutely not.  I feel sorry for the Casey Anthony jurors.  Anybody who knows anything about criminal procedure knows that the jurors rendered the proper verdict in this case.  They didn't follow their "gut" as the prosecutor or Nancy Grace would have had them do.  They followed the law and they are heroes for protecting the system (not necessarily the defendant) in the face of such enormous public pressure.

 

Exactly.  I felt the same way about the OJ Simpson case.  Protecting the integrity of the institution of law sometimes means foregoing punishment of wrongdoing. 

Better 1,000 guilty men go free than one innocent soul be left to rot in jail for something he didn't do.

As for "jury duty", when I got stuck on it I made a point of wearing my sports jerseys and stuff like that, figuring (correctly) that I'd be the first one the prosecution excused every single time. 

 

Then, when a guy of about 20 was being charged with aiming his car at some cops who were trying to arrest him, I told his attorney flat out that if he claimed "self defense" I quite simply wasn't going to buy it.  I told McGinty the same thing and I was excused. 

 

Others in the pool told me they recessed right after that, then they came back and he changed his plea to guilty.  I'm pretty sure his lawyer told him "your best chance in that jury pool just said out loud what everyone in there was thinking".

"Better 1,000 guilty men go free than one innocent soul be left to rot in jail for something he didn't do."

 

I take it then you're for that Shalit deal in Israel?

 

Personally, I've never bought that mantra.

 

 

Based on your attempted analogy, I don't think you quite understand the spirit of the mantra.  We're not talking about negotiating with terrorists or prisoner exchanges.  We are talking about the American legal system.  Our system is set up to protect the innocent at nearly all costs.  So many people fail to appreciate that fact until they are accussed of a crime they did not commit.

I understand the spirit of the mantra; I just don't buy it.

Based on your attempted analogy, I don't think you quite understand the spirit of the mantra.  We're not talking about negotiating with terrorists or prisoner exchanges.  We are talking about the American legal system.  Our system is set up to protect the innocent at nearly all costs.  So many people fail to appreciate that fact until they are accussed of a crime they did not commit.

 

My point had more to do with systemic abuses.  The idea that the law can be bent badly to prove someone the cops and prosecutors "know" is guilty applied to the OJ case.  Prosecutorial overreach to try to get a jury to overconvict since the only other option is acquittal is another.  Both are more dangerous than the actions of individual malefactors.

 

The old line "a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged" has been supplemented with "a libertarian is a conservative who's been indicted".

I don't see how our points really differ.  As far as cutesy partisan lines, I prefer - liberals feel unworthy of their possessions, while conservatives feel they deserve everything they stole ;)

 

and they meet in the middle when someone tries to take it back!  :laugh:

 

but to the point no, the jurors should not be named. when i have been on jury, and i was foreperson once too, they hustle you out the back after you give the verdict. for a reason!!!

 

edit

If it's a high profile case, with incendiary levels of rabble-rousing controversy, then I'd say no.  I would not want the "glory" even more than I wouldn't want to perform the duty...