[Mom of 3]

Originally Posted by gidget529

Wow. I do not think the concept of "civil duty" includes getting paid for interviews. So, I do not think this jury understands the concept of "civil duty". I think our founding fathers would cringe.

I also think our justice system is only as good as the critical thinking skills and IQ's of the jurors selected. (I know, sounds rude, but it is the cold hard truth!) If jurors lack the reasoning skills to understand the concept of "reasonable doubt", there is no hope for a just verdict. Also, if they lack the reasoning skills to understand the different charges brought againt the defendant, they are an ineffective jury. They also lacked the intellect to comprehend the judge's instructions not to consider the penalty when deciding on the decision of guilt.

These jurors lacked comprehension of this so much that in interviews they claim the punishment of death seemed extreme to them, so they could not convict. The punishment was not to be considered. Also, there was a lesser charge carrying a lighter sentence they were to consider. Once again, the lack of intellect of these jurors was appalling.

Unfortunately, a lot of research goes into how to pick a jury to ensure the desired outcome for either side. I don't think our founding fathers had that in mind either.

How could ppl w a healthy amount of critical thinking skills and IQ level only deliberate for about 11 hours w all the evidence presented, also w notes that they left in the courtroom? These are jurors did not take their civil duty seriously. I think the proof of this is in the pudding.

I agree with everything you said here. The jurors didn't understand what they were deciding on. Taking 11 hours, and thinking she would get a death
sentance, proves that. To only be guilty of lying? Com'on! But I have to admit, we have not heard the last of her yet. This girl loves to lie, and party, so it will catch up with her again. T