I heard a rather interesting debate related to the jury system currently in place. Of course this was all triggered by the Casey Anthony trial but raises an issue that’s far more compelling. The argument was made as a comment on the idea of “reasonable doubt” and that since there really was no major criteria for a juror, that a highly educated lawyer could easily “trick” a common jury member into having reasonable doubt.
I am sure it’s reasonable to assume a jury of twelve would be ideally be diverse in its makeup but inevitably, there is going to be an unskilled, uneducated and probably vulnerable (and/or gullible) individual and this isn’t necessarily an insult but rather a real possibility. I know that our judicial system is supposed to be one of the pillars of our democracy and freedom and when it works, it’s not questioned but when it doesn’t (as most believe it didn’t in the Anthony trial), it raises a lot of ire but should raise a lot more questions for review.
What are your thoughts?