Juror Number 5

Wow, I'm really on a roll with this blogging thing recently. I'm just overflowing with opinion and ideas right now. :)

Unless you were under a rock or had your head up your... you would know that last week the Michael Jackson verdict came in. Jackson was aquitted of EVERYTHING! I understand that the number one charge was Jackson supposedly holding the boy and his family against their will. Kinda a crazy charge and I can see a not guilty there. I can even see not guiltys on the molestation charges if the evidence wasn't there. Charges 7-10 were what really got me. Those were charges pertaining to serving alcohol to minors. I think the evidence clearly showed that Jackson served "Jesus Juice" to his young friends on more than one occasion. It just seemed like the jury was afraid to convict this guy of anything.

That brings me to my point in this blog. The jury. I've recently started to dislike our judicial system and how juries play a role in it. I know some of you are saying right now, "well the verdict wasn't what you wanted so you blame the jury and dislike them." Understandable, but here is some evidence. Tonight (June 20) the jury in the Mississippi Civil Rights Murder case came back after ONE hour...ONE! and said, "sorry, but we are split 50/50." The judge was like, "are you crazy? Take the night off and you got work to do tomorrow." This case dates back 40 years and evidently the first time this Baptist minister who alledgedly coordinated the murders of three civil rights activists he was cleared by a hung jury...11-1. The one who didn't convict him said "I just can't convict a minister."

Juror number 5 in the Jackson case is a 79 year old grandma, who apparently is know considereing writing a book...note to lady, your 15 minutes are up...In the interview following the decision, she was the one who said the turning point for her was when the boy's mom (who you gotta admit is strange herself for letting her child stay with Jacko) snapped her fingers at the jury. Her quote was something like, "you don't snap your fingers at me, lady." Here are my thoughts on that: Great! A decision was just made/a turning point was determined NOT because of evidence, but because the witness snapped her finger at you! Same with the Mississippi man's trial years ago. The evidence was obviously enough to convince 11 jurors of his guilt, but he walks because one just can't stand to send a minister to jail. Note to that person, the law is the law, whether you are a minister or an average joe.

It seems more and more, jurors (especially in high profile cases) are there for their own cause (a book, interviews, etc.) and make decisions that are not based on evidence, but feelings. Maybe that is just the result of having humans, with human faults, making these decisions. I like a jury better than just the one judge making a decision, but maybe we need to change a few things. One would be to let the jury hear the news, read the paper, etc. Closing them out from the world I don't think is good on their psyche. Second, I would say that instead of having a decision made with a unanimous vote maybe we can have like a 2/3rds majority be okay for a decision. This would rid us of those jurors who just want to be a pain/be different/be famous. On the flip side I could be way off on this point, just something that is bugging me right now. Later