Just as I suspected...

I usually don't second-guess juries unless there's a damn good reason. When a jury let drill instructors walk free for brutally murdering a teen at a detention boot camp, I had to question the jurors' fitness, because a video camera caught the torture in plain sight. But that's a rare exception.

Legal systems need juries. Some countries have abolished jury trials, because jurors weren't favorable enough to the system, but this policy underscores why juries are needed.

When a MySpace fraudster who caused the suicide of a teenage girl was let off easy recently at her federal criminal trial, I strongly suspected that the jury wasn't allowed to hear all the evidence.

Turns out I was right.

The jury failed to convict on the felony counts, because the court wouldn't even let them hear evidence that was central to the case. After the trial, when they got all the facts, jurors said they wanted to convict the hoaxster on the felonies but lacked the key evidence.

To convict on the felonies, they would have had to find that the defendant intentionally accessed MySpace to commit a tortious act. The defendant had done so, but the jurors weren't allowed to hear this evidence.

That's how trials are conducted under Bush-appointed judges, I guess.

The defendant was convicted for several misdemeanors, but her lawyer may appeal even those to the federal 9th Circuit Court. Legal experts say even these convictions are likely to be overturned then, because the 9th Circus is so right-wing.

Anyone who's ever been the victim of Internet harassment knows how terrifying it is. It's also been clear for years that conservatives are intent on mollycoddling online harassers. In their mixed-up world, anything goes - as long as someone is harmed by it.

We need to toughen the laws on online harassment and make sure our courts follow these laws.

(Source: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/12/jurors-wanted-t.html)