Intimidating the jury

Glen Tschirgi says it’s How Democracy Crumbles: Implosion of the Jury System.

this idea that the State must prove the guilt of the accused, and prove it beyond a “reasonable doubt” to a jury of peers is the key stone that protects us from arbitrary oppression by the State.

The fact that the public perceives that “justice” was not carried out illustrates: (A) that the public is never shy about condemning people without all the facts that were available to the jury, and; (B) that the public has lost sight of this key responsibility of the State to prove its case.

When we reach the point that jurors cannot serve without fearing for their lives if they dare to hold the State accountable for proving guilt, the jury system collapses.

lest anyone think that tyranny cannot happen in these United States, just look at the Fast and Furious/Gunwalker scandal for a sample of government run amok.

There are a lot of folks who have cast judgment – consider Human Rights Watch and their war on the previous administration by the simple expedient of defining torture. The certitude of many who are well removed from the intimate details of a situation and who have their own axe to grind belies the nature of human perceptions and reality. The acquittal of Casey Anthony in Orlando, Florida provides a case study of a public that is disappointed that an outcome not in line with their beliefs. The expression of that disappointment is egregious and misdirected. It should be directed at the state for failure of performance in meeting effective standards of proving guilt; not in the threats to the jurors.

Comments are closed.