<p>What do people think about the reports that some of the juror’s will talk for the right price? I wonder if juror’s on future capital cases would adjust their verdicts hoping to cash in after the case is over. it all seems pretty unseemly to me. I think that juror’s should not be allowed to profit from sitting in judgement of another, regardless of the verdict. Somehow it makes the process seem a tad “dirty.” I also think that they should not receive anything other than gratitude for their services, somehow trips to Disneyworld don’t seem very appropriate (one of the juror’s accepted a 4 day trip to disneyworld from ABC it has been reported). Terrible.</p>
<p>But judges profit from sitting in judgement of others.</p>
<p>Just for the sake of the argument. (It does seem morally repugnant on many levels), and yet, judges and police officers profit.</p>
<p>Yes. (10 char)</p>
<p>Do judges profit?</p>
<p>There is no way to prevent Casey Anthony from profiting and no way to prevent any jurors from profiting.</p>
<p>Some of the jurors may have lost a lot of income sitting there for days on end.</p>
<p>define profit?</p>
<p>Profit=benefit or gain whether monetary, gifts, goods, or services</p>
<p>then, yes: Judges, attorneys, police officers profit.</p>
<p>this is for florida, where Casey Anthony was tried:</p>
<p><a href=“http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Florida_state_government_salary[/url]”>http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Florida_state_government_salary</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But they don’t decide a person’s fate (in a capital case). I just feel that if people can start to cut financial deals then they may have an agenda and serve on a jury for the wrong reasons.</p>
<p>How many states still have capital punishment?</p>
<p>Circuit Judge Belvin Perry is the chief judge for the Orlando area district that has about 25 other circuit judges working under Perry in the circuit. He could have had one of the other judges do the Anthony trial but took it for himself. Now there are reports that he is getting offers to do a TV deal that could make him the next Judge Judy on TV (Judge Judy reportedly was making about $45 million/yr.) Did Judge Perry inappropriately set himself up for a potential jackpot windfall after being paid by taxpayers for years to serve as a civil servant? Should he cash in?</p>
<p>^totally agree with irishmary, but did they anticipate the amount of media attention when they signed up? It’s just that now, when it’s all over, everyone puts their hand out. I think it should be a requirement, just like it’s a voluntary duty, to not allow any sort of profit on cases you’ve juried.</p>
<p>And sadly Casey Anthony will definitely profit from all this attention, but she won’t get a penny from me. Nope, won’t buy a single magazine if she’s featured or watch a single show she’s on. I just hope the judge will tell Casey she can’t profit from this, but he probably won’t.</p>
<p>34 states still have the death penalty</p>
<p>Limabeans I agree with you 100%!!! As for the judge making money… I don’t care whether he becomes the next judge Judy . I fundamentally have a problem with juror’s thinking they can get rich doing their civic duty. I think it will change the complexion of the jury system in the future if these juror’s become wealthy deciding whether or not a woman should walk or get the death penalty. You know,before rendering a verdict, they consider how the outcome may benefit them rather than the person they sit in judgement of! I think there needs to be some "Son of Sam"law for juror’s . Just my opinion.</p>
<p>I"m pretty horrified to find out that 34 states still have the death penalty. Egad!</p>
<p>I think we have made defending and prosecuting criminals into a lucrative business for whatever reason. Jurors maybe “should” be above that? I don’t know.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t pay for anything from Casey Anthony, what would be the point? You wouldn’t find out anything but fiction. Rather pay for a good whodunit. </p>
<p>Which, btw, Mom2K should be writing whodunnits, imho.</p>
<p>I would pay, though, to get a book about what went on inside that eleven hour deliberation, or even the whole time they were sequestered. </p>
<p>“should” they profit? I don’t know. There are real ethical issues with this.</p>
<p>Would I pay for that book? Probably</p>
<p>plural of “juror” = “jurors”</p>
<p>I don’t think there is all that much profit to be made. It seems from what we have been told already that the story is a fairly simple one. The prosecution didn’t prove its case. The jurors, who took their duties seriously, felt that there was reasonable doubt and that they had to acquit Casey on the major charges, even though they were upset about needing to do so. </p>
<p>What more is there to tell?</p>
<p>Six hard weeks, sequestered from their family and friends, getting paid $15 a day for the first 3 days then $30 a day for days there was trial. Why not? This is America, home of capitalism. I would rather see the jurors get something than Casey.</p>
<p>There is not much to be made. But why not a few paid appearances to tell their story. One of them might able to write a book. The story from the jury room has to be one of interest.</p>
<p>They should be able to profit from telling their stories. Casey Anthony most likely wil. I’d rather read about what led to their decision than read about Casey’s lies.</p>
<p>Wow, I guess I am just out there on this. I am surprised that alot of you think it is ok for jurors (sorry for the mistake) to make money for doing their civic duty. It just doesn’t sit well with me because I think that going forward you will have people who may be less than truthful while being voir dired just to sit on the jury in big cases. After all, there may be a big payday at the end of it all. I think that being compensated for sitting on a jury presents a host of ethical issues. It is our duty to do jury service. I don’t put them in the same catagory as Casey Anthony. She was found not guilty and has a right (however that turns my stomach) to tell her story. But, for me, jurors are another matter. If she was found guilty, the Son of Sam law would have prevented her from profiting from her crime, but people found not guilty can have at it (notice I didn’t say innocent). </p>
<p>Do you all really believe that if jurors begin to make some $$$ from sitting on high profile cases that this will not impact the behavior of these other jurors going forward? I disagree. People are greedy and you will get that one or two who hang a jury just because it may make for a good book later. I think it muddys the water about being fair and impartial and frankley do defendants need to worry about the motivations of the people who sit in judgement of them? I understand wanting to hear about how they came to the decision that they made, I just think that they should never make a dime from it.</p>