Tag Archive | "trial by jury"

Beyond the Casey Anthony Case

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,



During World War II, there was a cliché used by servicemen wishing to resolve problems or disputes.  That phrase was, “Tell it to the Chaplain.”  In other words, get it off your chest and then move on with your life.  As a result, the Chaplain became the confidential keeper of secrets who would, according to God’s laws, advise the confessor as to the proper course of action.


This, however, is America.  And as per Constitutional Law, we “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”  In so doing, we have crafted a legal system considered to be the finest (read: most just) in all the world.  Its basic tenets are:


1.       Presumption of innocence until proven guilty

2.       The right for an accused to be judged by a jury of his or her peers

3.       The right to appeal a sentence

4.       Executive Order (a.k.a., a Presidential Pardon)


Despite the simplicity and apparent clarity of these tenets, our legal system is actually quite complex as well as expensive.  It costs to hire an attorney skilled in plying legal jargon, if not actual evidence, to prove innocence or guilt. (In this particular case, money does buy happiness and God help the poor!)  Rich or poor, during the past decade, America has witnessed crimes committed by notable and soon-to-be notable individuals: perpetrators who have received variable judgments, based upon the nature of their crimes, in an effort to protect our society against such persons.


I remember the Watergate trial, astounded not only as to how it was unfolding, but how it was unfolding before my very eyes: live, through the magic of television!  I suppose that Watergate set the precedent for mass media to be invited into our courtrooms as a means of keeping the public informed.  Thus, we the people had remote, live access to the O.J. Simpson trial and other notorious trials.  More and more, however, the media continued its carefully plotted intrusion into these cases.


Before mass media had intervened in such a manner, court cases were tried within the confines of a courtroom, in the jurisdiction of the locale in which the alleged crime was committed.  But, thanks to technology, the Court of Public Opinion has adulterated our legal system.  Complete with all the trappings of a media sideshow (is anyone else disturbed by the antics of Nancy Grace and Jane Velez-Mitchell?), it  includes public panel discussions in which the pros and cons of as yet unresolved legal cases are bandied about. Personal opinions of the newscasters and their guests are tossed in to liven things up and increase viewership or readership of the media vehicles.  In the old days, these types of proceedings would have been known as “lynch mobs.”


Extensive media coverage of an ongoing trial does nothing to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused  party.   But that is not its purpose.  Its true intent is to improve media ratings and line the pockets of the media moguls and their investors.  Whether we’re watching or listening to the media, reading newspapers, Twittering opinions, or surfing the Internet for coverage, it all comes down to money.


If you doubt this, consider this all too prevalent scenario.  Have you ever watched or listened to a Presidential speech, a sporting event, or even a natural disaster unfolding on the news?  If so, did you notice that there was always a follow-up panel, sometimes on a separate, yet dovetailed program, to explain to you what you just witnessed — as if you’d lacked the common sense to interpret the information presented to you?  And if you have tuned in to these programs, what did you see and hear?  Answer: you saw and heard the news tainted by the personal opinions of the media and their guest speakers.


In days of old, when knights were bold, as the old saying goes, news reporters were constrained to report local and national events via specific criteria, which were:


1.       Where?

2.       Why?

3.       Who?

4.       When?

5.       What?


Reporters were not to stray from the bonds of these standards.  Reporters were told to keep their personal opinions to themselves; they were charged with a now-antiquated concept called “objective reporting.”


With this in mind, aside from the rich and the poor, there are, in my estimation, three classes of people:


1.       The religious

2.       The non-religious

3.       The hypocrites


Religious people tend to believe in and follow the commandants of God.  Non-religious people tend to adhere to manmade legal systems (civil and criminal legislation).  And hypocrites tend to bend both God’s Law and manmade laws to suit their own purposes.


Pressing ever forward into this new millennium, it’s strange how manmade laws are swiftly replacing God’s laws — even though our currency still bears the motto, “In God We Trust.”  However, when we are visited by war and strife, man turns to God for assistance, even if he does not truly believe in a being greater than himself.


Another World War II cliché was, “There are no atheists in foxholes.”  This more or less says it all about the media injecting its own personal views into evolving legal cases, for the sole intent of stirring up controversy and pumping up their profits.  “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord”, but “Cold hard cash is mine,” says an irresponsible and anything but objective media.


The moral of this story is, before you pass judgment on any person, a judgment based solely upon the media’s slanted coverage, consider these words found in the Bible:


“Let ye who are without sin, cast the first stone.”  And then move on with your life. 


Site Sponsors

Site Sponsors

Site Sponsors










RSSLoading Feed...

Live Traffic Feed

RSSLoading Feed...