How A Trial Jury resembles Social Constructionism
Michael R Wyatt
After 33 days of testimony, 400 pieces of evidence and over 90 witnesses the jury on the Casey Anthony trial reached a verdict. The case was mostly circumstantial, but as it unfolded it portrayed her as a self-centered cold blooded killer. On July 5, 2011 America witnessed Casey Anthony being acquitted of murdering her 2 year old daughter Caylee Anthony. To many people around the nation the “not guilty” verdict represented a failure in our justice system to mete out justice the public determined was merited. The verdict is a perfect example of our judicial system working ineffectively and letting yet another murderer to be free. Casey Anthony who was arrested in 2008 on the charge of murdering Caylee Anthony was acquitted of all charges except for lying to police multiple times about her daughter. The delivery of the verdict not only caused the court clerk to pause and recompose herself, but caused a general disdain throughout the country for how our justice system treats certain people.
The consensus of the nation can be summed up by the statement of New Yorker Susan McDougal “I’m sick, you know she killed a little girl and she gets off, goes home and maybe has another baby she can abuse and hurt.” Judgments like that give a green light to questionable people that it is alright to kill your child just as long as you know the prosecution will have a “weak” case against you, and you have a “good “ attorney that will get off! This level of level of ignorance displayed by our justice system is shameful and unacceptable. Our nation has laws based on reason, and our system’s bedrock principle is innocent until proven guilty. It’s a shame those principals weren’t used here. The American Judicial system has a set of rules passed by congress and approved by judges nationwide that establishes, in detail, how trials should be managed and what evidence may go to...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document