RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.9907/pub_detail.asp

As things stand now, the rights of all media to profit from sensationalizing trials supercede the rights of ordinary citizens to live a normal life while performing a civic duty. There would be no need to import jurors from other counties and sequester them if there weren’t rampant coverage of gruesome crimes splattered over newspapers, periodicals and television screens. What began as an important freedom of the press has morphed into outlandishly profitable exploitation by the press to the detriment of every aspect of a trial. First, there is the heightened bias against a defendant who will have already been subjected to editorial judgment before coming to court. In a questionable attempt to minimize that, there is the aforementioned import and sequestering of jurors requiring isolation from their families, homes and communities during extended periods of time. During the trial, there is the close-up exposure of the defendant whose loss of anonymity may put him/her at increased peril from public animosity. After the trial, there is the unconscionable purchase of jurors’ exclusive interviews and stories, giving them a dubious incentive to reach controversial verdicts to generate greater interest in their deliberations. This doesn’t have to be a conscious motive to remain an underlying temptation that is inimical to our view of jury service as a duty incumbent upon all citizens.

 The Son of Sam Law outlaws criminals from profiting from their crimes. Perhaps it’s time to inaugurate the Caylee Anthony Law to prevent jurors from similar profits. One juror in this trial has already traded a TV interview on ABC for an all-expense paid trip to Disneyland with her family; negotiations are feverishly under way for the others. Similarly, the defense lawyer has signed on to an agent for a book deal. The defendant herself will soon have her pick of networks and studios anxious to purchase film and television rights to her story. Considering the financial burden of this trial on Orlando County, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to reimburse that municipality instead of letting individuals profit at the taxpayers’ expense? Considering that in most criminal trials innocent people have been murdered or maimed, isn’t there something obscene about a court procedure aiding and abetting profits generated by such tragedy? Considering also that a not guilty verdict in a case doesn’t necessarily mean what it says but sometimes means not sufficiently proven, isn’t it  a semantic argument as to which defendants get to profit from their crimes?

As a society we make ethical judgments all the time. Jose Baez, the defense attorney for Casey Anthony used his pulpit after the trial to object to capital punishment on the grounds that a state should never “murder” its citizens as murder for whatever reason is always wrong. Perhaps he will have second thoughts about secondary gain from the murder of a two year old girl by selling his story. Perhaps he should be the very person to spearhead a drive to change our current system and have trials respect  the dignity of the victims and the rights of  jurors above the interests of corporate and individual greed.