OPINION:
If the judge pressures the jury in the Lindsay Clancy case to reach a unanimous verdict, is that justice? Or does it expose the limits of our jury system in deeply divisive, emotionally charged cases?
Whatever the outcome of this case, many people will claim that it was unfair, and they may have a point.
Perhaps it’s time to consider professional juries for high-profile cases involving highly technical evidence. Well-trained, compensated jurors could evaluate complex scientific testimony more consistently and be better equipped to separate emotion from evidence.
Such a system might prove more efficient than repeated mistrials and years of appeals.
Meanwhile, demonstrators in matching pink shirts chanting outside the courthouse do nothing to advance justice. Trials should be decided by the evidence presented in court, not by public pressure from supporters on either side.
Whether the verdict is guilty, not guilty or the case ends in a mistrial, a substantial portion of the public will reject the outcome.
When so many people lose confidence in the process, perhaps the time has come to rethink how justice is administered in our most contentious cases.
SCOTT THOMPSON
Bloomington, Indiana
Please read our comment policy before commenting.