This is actually a flaw of the jury system. The European continental system lets a judge appreciate whether a person is guilty or not of some crime. Since judges have to pass an exam in order to be appointed and since they are not elected for some period of time, their complete independence is assured. This way, an impartial judge would be indifferent to the media pressure and would weigh the evidence better than any jury, since a judge certainly has more experience than any juror. However, the American legal system chose to put ordinary people to judge other ordinary people, with the "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" principle as the only protection for the accused. Who can actually believe that the jurors didn't have any doubt, whatsoever, in the Peterson case? After all, a jury let OJ go free, so there is nothing as unpredictable as juries. There is no fail-safe solution to this problem. However, since OJ was found not guilty, there was a fair chance that Peterson could have also gone free. Perhaps that would have been better. At least there was the same justice for everyone. But the verdict in Peterson's case is a heavy blow to the credibility...
Hilden, Julie, "The Scott Peterson trial: Can prosecutors win the case?," FindLaw Columnist Special to CNN.com, CNN.com, July 21, 2004 WednesdayOur semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now