Post by CCADP on Aug 12, 2005 8:57:29 GMT -5
From Ridgecrest Daily Independant :
Jury trial may need to be revamped
By The Daily Independent Editorial Board
Thursday, August 11, 2005 1:26 PM PDT
The announcement of two jurors in the Michael Jackson case who now say they regret their decision to acquit the pop singer of child molestation and other charges is another example of why our justice system needs to be revamped.
Jurors Eleanor Cook and Ray Hultman, who both have pending book deals, said in a televised interview Monday night that they believed the singer's young accuser was sexually assaulted.
"No doubt in my mind whatsoever, that boy was molested, and I also think he enjoyed to some degree being Michael Jackson's toy," Cook said on MSNBC's "Rita Cosby: Live and Direct."
It appears if these people truly felt that way they should have cast a different vote during the trial or at least debated the issue longer than they did. But then we are assuming these people had no other agenda than to ensure justice prevailed.
Justice, seems to be lacking more and more in these high profile cases where people are making money off victims, criminals and celebrities.
Look at the Robert Blake case. Jurors were quick to say he was not guilty of murdering or having someone murder his wife. Meantime, one juror was documenting the entire trial and selling it on the Internet. The day the case was over, he had a CD available for sale.
The Scott Peterson Case was somewhat different in that it didn't appear the jurors were there to write books. However, in the Peterson case, in which Scottt was accused of killing his wife and unborn baby, the jurors may have convicted the man simply because they didn't like him. This too is troubling.
And what about all the cases we don't hear about where people are convicted or set free because a jury needed to get to a ball game on time, or they just didn't like the way the guy looked or it seemed like the right thing to do.
Still, our justice system is probably the most fair in the world. That's one reason no one wants to reform it even though many, including lawyers and judges, will admit it has problems.
We suggest the first step is to establish stricter rules on how one can profit from certain cases. For example, book deals shouldn't be allowed for five years after a verdict is given. This would not eliminate people from profit but it would reduce the amount of people that serve on a jury and base their decisions on whether they will make money or not from the trial.
Reformation also must start in-house.
Judges, attorneys and others within the justice system need to be scrutinized too. There are some in the system that are damaging the process. Until these people are removed or these issues are addressed properly, true justice as envisioned by our forefathers will not be served.
In this great land of liberty, in a courtroom, truth should be the highest priority - the price of that is something we should all be willing to pay instead of so readily purchasing or selling a "tainted" book.
Jury trial may need to be revamped
By The Daily Independent Editorial Board
Thursday, August 11, 2005 1:26 PM PDT
The announcement of two jurors in the Michael Jackson case who now say they regret their decision to acquit the pop singer of child molestation and other charges is another example of why our justice system needs to be revamped.
Jurors Eleanor Cook and Ray Hultman, who both have pending book deals, said in a televised interview Monday night that they believed the singer's young accuser was sexually assaulted.
"No doubt in my mind whatsoever, that boy was molested, and I also think he enjoyed to some degree being Michael Jackson's toy," Cook said on MSNBC's "Rita Cosby: Live and Direct."
It appears if these people truly felt that way they should have cast a different vote during the trial or at least debated the issue longer than they did. But then we are assuming these people had no other agenda than to ensure justice prevailed.
Justice, seems to be lacking more and more in these high profile cases where people are making money off victims, criminals and celebrities.
Look at the Robert Blake case. Jurors were quick to say he was not guilty of murdering or having someone murder his wife. Meantime, one juror was documenting the entire trial and selling it on the Internet. The day the case was over, he had a CD available for sale.
The Scott Peterson Case was somewhat different in that it didn't appear the jurors were there to write books. However, in the Peterson case, in which Scottt was accused of killing his wife and unborn baby, the jurors may have convicted the man simply because they didn't like him. This too is troubling.
And what about all the cases we don't hear about where people are convicted or set free because a jury needed to get to a ball game on time, or they just didn't like the way the guy looked or it seemed like the right thing to do.
Still, our justice system is probably the most fair in the world. That's one reason no one wants to reform it even though many, including lawyers and judges, will admit it has problems.
We suggest the first step is to establish stricter rules on how one can profit from certain cases. For example, book deals shouldn't be allowed for five years after a verdict is given. This would not eliminate people from profit but it would reduce the amount of people that serve on a jury and base their decisions on whether they will make money or not from the trial.
Reformation also must start in-house.
Judges, attorneys and others within the justice system need to be scrutinized too. There are some in the system that are damaging the process. Until these people are removed or these issues are addressed properly, true justice as envisioned by our forefathers will not be served.
In this great land of liberty, in a courtroom, truth should be the highest priority - the price of that is something we should all be willing to pay instead of so readily purchasing or selling a "tainted" book.