Sunday, July 10, 2011

Saturday Six – Anthony Verdict

This week’s Patrick’s Place Saturday Six Meme was about the Casey Anthony trial.

1. How much attention did you pay to the Casey Anthony trial?

Virtually none. In fact, I wasn’t familiar with the case until the verdict was rendered. We don’t watch much news, and this particular case held no interest for me.

2. How justified do you think people are in their outrage at the jury’s verdict?

It’s understandable, but not justified. It’s only natural to be upset when circumstances don’t go as you had hoped they would. The facts of the case, as I know them, were suspect. If one of my children was missing for 30 seconds, I’d be calling in the National Guard to find them. But people obviously jumped to a conclusion that the jury could not support.

3. How often do you watch shows like Nancy Grace, who focuses a great deal of attention on cases like this?

I don’t watch shows like Nancy Grace. I had never even heard of the show before this Saturday Six. My viewing tends to be more Discovery/History, and anything to do with the NFL.

4. If you had been a juror in that case, would you have talked to the media right after the verdict was delivered?

I would have. My goal would have been to help get my name ‘out there’. It might cause people to start following me on Twitter or reading my blog. What is the old saying, “No publicity is bad publicity.”

5. If you were a juror and you were later offered money for an interview, how likely would you be willing to accept payment to appear on television to discuss the case?

I would absolutely accept money for an interview. Get my name out there AND get paid? Where do I sign up? I would state my answers in such a way as to not give away the identity of other jurors in attempt to respect their right to keep their opinions to themselves.

6. Would you support a law that would prohibit a juror from profiting from being on a jury in this manner? Why or why not?

I would not support such a law.

If there were not people who would gladly pay for such information, there would be no one to sell it.

I think we need to get past a knee jerk reaction of  ‘there ought to be a law’ so often. We’ve got a multi-multi trillion dollar deficit. Our lawmakers have better ways to spend their time, and our law enforcement has more important crimes to prosecute than someone making a couple of bucks off a civic duty most people dread and try their best to avoid.

If it could somehow be shown that such profiting somehow might affect the outcome of  a jury, then there might be more grounds to support such a law. But I think that would be a very difficult case to make.

No comments: