Here’s an excerpt from the Sixth Amendment, that notorious collection of rights that our ‘beloved’ forefathers came up with in all their Colonial glory:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to the informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Regrettably, there is no mention of the fact that you will be at the mercy of 12 people – with a couple of alternates just in case – with no background in or knowledge of the law. These 12 people, your peers, will scrutinize you, your background, and the charges against you, as well as the witnesses, the prosecution’s presentation, and whatever defense theories that your own lawyers may have. These 12 people can be homemakers, librarians, janitors, schoolteachers, firemen, retail clerks, fast food burger flippers, production associates, and even college students. These are the types of people who may be deciding your fate.
Would any normal person choose to be tried before a jury?
Juries can be fickle. They can be biased and they can be downright stupid. Take the jury that put North Carolina mass murderer Michael Charles Hayes in a nuthouse for a mere 23 or so years, rather than life in prison or even the death penalty. What the hell did these 12 idiots know about the insanity defense, using mental illness as an excuse to kill, or the law in general? Not a goddamn thing. This is just one reason why the jury system should be outlawed. Another reason is the OJ Simpson case. His lawyers, called the ‘Dream Team’ by the media even though they were in fact not experienced in criminal defense (other than F. Lee Bailey), played the Race Card so successfully that they managed to get an acquittal even though, to my mind at least, OJ Simpson was very guilty. I still believe he had something to do with the murders even though the Reelz show Autopsy claimed he couldn’t have due to his age and condition. Bah humbug!
Then there is Casey Anthony. A jury acquitted this killer of a little girl and that’s it, she can never be tried again due to the Double Jeopardy law. Do we really want morons to continue to acquit these sociopathic murderers? Who’s to say that devious bitch Casey won’t have another child and kill that one too, just so she can have a wild party life? If more women were convicted of murder and given long prison sentences or even the death penalty the way that men are, America might become a safer place. (After Chicago is blown off the face of the map that is.)
You always hear of juries that become hung because there is that one holdout who will not convict a killer, despite evidence to the contrary, for one silly cause or other, and those even more loony juries that wholly acquit someone even though they probably know, deep down inside, that the defendant is as guilty as was David Berkowitz and Ted Bundy. I see it all the time on various shows about criminals: Snapped, The First 48, After The First 48, Forensic Files, Dateline, 48 Hours, Cold Case Files…criminals getting away with murder because the jury could not agree that the person had done the crime s/he was being accused of.
Juries are made up of a bunch of people who are eager to be important, which they otherwise are not. The egotism of people reveals itself with the jury system. It is a pathetic and ought to be abolished.