Should Jurors Be Allowed to Profit?
Posted: Tuesday, August 16, 2011
by Terry Mitchell
http://commenterry.blogs.com
In the wake of the recently-completed Casey Anthony trial, a debate has arisen over jurors profiting from the cases for which they served. It appears that some of the jurors from the Anthony case are planning to sign lucrative book deals. The judge who presided over that case is less than thrilled with that prospect, to say the least. He may even seek to prevent them from profiting.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that spending money is a form of free speech. Therefore, if someone wants to pay a former juror for writing or talking about his or her experiences, they have a perfect right to do so. In addition, I don’t see anything immoral or unethical about being an opportunist in regard to one’s civic and legal obligations. Hey, if you have to serve, why not take advantage of any benefits that might come with it. Think of it as a kind of hyper-compensation for having served on a jury. It seems only fair to me.
This Article has been viewed 444 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (2 total)I agree with you Terry. And especially they should be allowed to do this if others who have been perpetrators of crime can write and gain by it. Good article.Joel, thanks as always for reading and commenting. Yes, if the bad guys can profit, why quibble with jurors getting a piece of action.
I don't know how we should regulate this form of speech, Terry? On one side we have what we think is free speech, on the other we have judicial jurisdiction. It would be sad to think that someone's (including yours) future might be determined by how a juror cast his vote in order to profit. People think in funny ways and this would have to be considered a possibility. On the other hand, a court has the power to determine what can and can't be said about a particular trial. Certain things are not disclosed to the public.
I have always fundamentally thought that a person is free to do what they want until they have committed a crime. Today, our laws are drafted and passed to deter what might happen, not what has happened. We are all going broke and American citizens are being ruined by these laws. A rather slippery slope in my opinion. A very controversial subject with a lot of gray in it. Great article, Rick M.Rick, you've hit on an interesting point. The fact that laws "passed to deter what might happen, not what has happened" is indeed a scary slippery slope. Thanks for reading and commenting.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.