UNREASONABLE DOUBT!

I actually wouldn't feel ok with myself if I didn't try to do my part over the horrendous injustice that was done to two year old Caley Anthony. A while back I wrote a play called "Mind Tricks" which set out to prove that the protagonist was a psychopath. At the time I learned that there were proven characteristics of a psychopath set down by a gentleman named Robert Hare. Not recalling all of them, I can tell you that the lack of a conscience, the lack of remorse, and being a pathological liar stood out in Mr. Hare's list as much as they did in the profile that Casey Anthony projected during her recent trial for the murder of her daughter.

My jaw hung at the 'not guilty verdict' as I'm certain did most people's who had followed this trial on a daily basis. "Shocked" and "stunned" do not do justice to the reaction to this verdict. Personally I felt that the Prosecuting attorneys were excellent. For me Mr. Ashton tied Casey's every move during those 31 days to exactly what took place. But the jury obviously found legal loopholes to justify their decision. At first I thought the Defense was the worst ever as it was so obvious for people to see through what they were doing. However as the days went by I realized that the extremely far fetched 'red herrings' they kept providing were indeed doing the job to 'confuse' the jurors. It was, in the end, a briliant defense as 'incredible' as it was. I therefore learned that without an extremely intelligent and educated jury panel who are well versed in human behavior, this injustice can become possible. Sadly none of the jurors who did indeed decide to publicly defend their position came across as having these qualities.

However, for most of us watching, according to current statistics,there was no way on earth there was any 'doubt' at all as to who had committed this heinous crime. As a result I believe we must review and make changes to our current 'Trial by Jury' system.

First I think the 'voir dire' process should be reviewed, and there should be certain intelligence standards that those who 'will stand in judgement' must meet. My next suggestion is that a new choice should be added to the instructions to the jurors called "Un-reasonable Doubt". This would fall between 'certainty' or 'guilty' according to the evidence provided, and 'reasonable doubt' which says there is simply not enough evidence to 'prove' that the guilt is there. 'Un-reasonable doubt' would say that: "while I understand there is no absolute proof shown me during this trial, my reasoning still tells me that it must have been this defendant who committed this crime. Reason overules my doubt."

The additions of truly qualified jurors and "Un-reasonable Doubt" would not seem impossible to incorporate. Let me know how you feel and what steps one would take next in order to succeed in making these additions to the current system.

Thanks for reading...look forward to your responses.

Mimi Scott, Ph.D
212 721-2979
917 846-2449
mscott13@aol.com
www.drmimiscott.com