Let's Try All Sensational Criminal Cases on TV!

The trial of Casey Anthony for the sensationally brutal murder of her young daughter Caylee has been much in the "news." It began to play out on national television when she was reported missing three years ago, and continued through the trial. Many are outraged that the jury failed to convict Casey Anthony of murder. According to this report provided by ABC News:

Casey Anthony juror Jennifer Ford said that she and the other jurors cried and were "sick to our stomachs" after voting to acquit Casey Anthony of charges that she killed her 2-year-old daughter Caylee.

"I did not say she was innocent," said Ford, who had previously only been identified as juror No. 3. "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

It has been suggested that the system of trial by jury should be abolished. Michael Graham, the brilliant and completely rational author of the linked think piece, observed with all due modesty:

Any system too stupid to convict Casey Anthony cannot be trusted to decide if I live or die. And finding Anthony not guilty is an act of criminal stupidity.

I’ve been following the Anthony case the way most men not named “Geraldo” have: Watching the headlines and reading the recaps, but not feasting on the daily dish. I knew everything I needed to know when Casey’s lawyers announced her defense would be (I’m paraphrasing only slightly) “My precious 2-year-old daughter drowned, and I panicked and hid the body in the woods, wrapped in plastic and duct tape for six months."

Next case!

I didn’t need more than that, but there was more. Much more.

. . .

This, my friends, is the jury that awaits us all. Which is why, when my misdemeanoring finally catches up with me, I want to be judged by the bench.

I’d rather have my fate in the hands of a single corrupt, drunken hack from the Massachusetts judiciary than 12 yokels too dumb to get out of jury duty.

A good judge such as presented here:

... would be far better than stupid jurors! What could they possibly know; they can't watch television as evidence is presented or even during their deliberations. Why should a bunch of such yokels be sitting in a jury box and getting paid handsome stipends just for being stupid and hence there and bored stiff? The whole system stinks. With brilliance such as demonstrated by Mr. Graham, there is no need to sift through evidence because what it means is obvious to anyone with half a brain who pays due attention to the media.

Indeed, the entire system of criminal injustice is stupid and hence produces stupid rather than just results. It all harks back to a ridiculous old document written by a bunch of yokels comparable to those who now sit on juries. It is referred to as the Constipation Constitution of the United States, the document superior to all others (except some treaties, some United Nations declarations, some acts of Congress, some executive orders, and some administrative agency actions) for the governance of the nation -- just as abstinence is the superior and only valid means of avoiding the horrors of anthropomorphic climate change.

Article III,  Section 2 of that specious old document provides:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

The Sixth Amendment, adopted in 1791, provides:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence [sic].