peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (11/11/84)
>From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) >He was found not guilty by a jury - and that's no surprise because there's >no way that even a randomly chosen jury would ever agree unanimously that >a crime has been done BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. And our system says >that to convict somebody of a crime, a jury must be unanimous and certain. >You would need a stacked right-to-life jury to get any other verdict. From the beginning, it was thought that a "hung jury", that is, one unable to agree on a verdict, was a very real, even likely, possibility. I take this to mean that ALL members of the jury were (despite the judge's clear preference for a guilty verdict, as shown by his charge to the jury) in favour of acquittal. So I don't think it was one lone pro-choice member of the jury that was responsible-- all that they could have done was to produce a hung jury, and the trial would have to start all over. And, of course, the jury was not randomly chosen: there was quite a long jury selection process. This process favours the defendants somewhat, but the prosecutor indicated general satisfaction with the jury that was eventually picked. So one can reasonably say that the jury *was* representative and that this indicates considerable public sentiment for a new abortion law for Canada (as do the polls). For readers (and particularly posters) of this group, it is interesting to note that, as far as I know, the trial did not deal with the fairly abstract notions (rights, when life begins, ...) that are the staple here. Rather, it dealt with the problems experienced by women who, for whatever reason, decided *for themselves* that they had to have an abortion and could not easily (and/or safely) have it done in Ontario. I expect this was, partially, the result of Morgentaler admitting that he was technically guilty but acted out of the necessity to safeguard the health of women seeking abortions. Reductionistic analysis has its considerable strengths but it seems to me that lumping victims of incest, teenagers ignorant of birth control, people who use generally effective birth control, and mythical so-called "rich bitches" all together and making blanket statements about *all* their cases is pretty ludicrous, given the necessary balancing of rights. Even two cases *within* those broad categories are likely to be very different, don't you think? I'd like to see some anti-abortionists present some realistic cases and argue how the woman should be deprived of the right to choose in those cases. Argue for the rights of the fetus if you wish, but, unless you believe the mother has NO rights in this matter at all (at which point we must agree to disagree, a great deal), you HAVE to consider the balance, and the individual case. peter rowley, University of Toronto Department of C.S., Ontario Canada M5S 1A4 UUCP {linus ihnp4 allegra floyd utzoo cornell decwrl uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!peterr CSNet peterr@toronto