GUILTY

Notes of Concern…
…Jackson Blair


GUILTY



I am thinking today of so many “oaters” (westerns made on the cheap for movie theaters) that I went to see as a child. Often there was some innocent hero in jail and an angry mob outside wanting to lynch him. Some brave sheriff would stand up to them and often the fellow with the rope would get shot.

Our behavior as a nation with reference to the O.J. Simpson verdict and now the Casey Anthony verdict is a little bit like the old movies.

In the two cases I mention the miracle of television permits us to watch the trial and draw conclusions about guilt or innocence. And we have Nancy Grace and other commentators to help us reach our conclusions. We become “experts” as we watch the accused, the judge and the spectators. We have a “gut” feel about the guilt of the accused.

But twelve of our fellow citizens have a more important and far-reaching job. They have to hear all the testimony, view all the evidence, listen to all the arguments and then a judge tells them what they can legally consider when they deliberate. They do not just get to turn the TV on when they have a few free minutes nor do they get to turn it off when they get bored.

Lots of innocent folk probably got strung up in those “oater movies” and in some cases a hero got there in time to save them. That isn’t real life today. We have laws. We place a burden of proof on the prosecutor. We promise the accused that we will consider them innocent until that burden of proof can convince twelve of their “peers” that guilty is indeed the right verdict.

If the prosecution fails to meet the burden then the accused is adjudged to be innocent and freed to continue life.

When someone who seems to be guilty is found to be “not guilty” because the burden of proof has not been met it means our system has worked. What it does not mean is that the accused is actually, truly or provably innocent. You see, our system does not require that the accused meet a burden of “innocent.” The accused doesn’t have to prove anything. The accused is a defendant, simply defending against what the prosecution might say.

Our system is heavily skewed toward the accused. It is intentionally made harder on the state. The premise is that occasionally a guilty person might be freed is more reasonable in our thinking than that a not guilty person might be put to death.

If you believe in public opinion polls then the people believed that O.J. Simpson was guilty of two heinous, brutal and sickening murders. In the courtroom that fact was not proven beyond a shadow of doubt to the twelve jurors.

In the case of Casey Anthony the people, according to public opinion polls, believe she killed her young daughter, or participated in some way in the death of her daughter, in a heinous, brutal and sickening way. Again, in the courtroom the prosecution failed to meet the burden set by our laws and the twelve jurors set Ms. Anthony free.

But our written laws, with all the nooks and crannies, ins and outs, and burdens placed there provide instruction to judges and juries, to the official court of law.

There are no such restraints placed on the “court of public opinion.” Mr. Simpson and Ms. Anthony were set free through our system of juris prudence and released by the court.
But in the court of public opinion they were judged to be guilty and they are spending, and will continue to spend the rest of their natural lives, every waking moment, walking among people who see them as murderers.

Proceedings in the Court of Public Opinion

Judge: will the Clerk please read the verdict.
Clerk: we the people find the defendant guilty on all counts.
Judge: having been found guilty on all counts I sentence the
defendant to a life of imprisonment amongst the people.


So say we all ?