Thursday, July 07, 2011
The man was convicted and sentenced to death. A few months later, while still in prison, he hung himself.
I didn't want to be on that jury but I felt it was my duty to serve. I didn't want to convict him of murder but I felt he was guilty. I didn't want him to be sentenced to death but that was the penalty for his crime. I'm sorry he took his life but that was a decision he made.
That was over thirty years ago. Back then I believed the jury system worked. Today, because of liberalism and everything having to be politically correct, I believe it is almost impossible to convict someone of a crime. Two examples of people getting away with crime is O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony. In my opinion, they both were as guilty as sin but were considered not guilty. One jurist in the Casey Anthony case said, "Not guilty doesn't mean innocent." But I say that for all practical purposes it does. When that jury said, "Not guilty" they knew they would also be saying, "She is innocent of these charges." You can't have it both ways.
Is it wrong to judge the jury? I don't think so. The old saying, "Stupid is as stupid does" applies here. Get twelve people together today and your chances of getting one or two who are unable or unwilling to make wise, rational decisions are great.
Our Lord got twelve people together to carry out a monumental task and some of them bumbled and stumbled along. Did Jesus do a good thing in giving responsibility to these twelve men? Yes, I think he did. Is it a good thing, then for us to select twelve people to make decisions about a persons guilt or innocence? Yes, I think it is. But we must---absolutely must, do a better job of instructing them concerning how to make decisions and reach verdicts.
If we cannot use common sense and circumstantial evidence we will continue to let the guilty go free and there will be no justice!