Reply #31: Not surprising, in a way

[choie]

First, of course I disagree with her; she helped convict the guy rightly, and the crimes of obstructing justice and lying to the feds deserve punishment. (I'm ignoring his greater crimes, e.g. for spilling Plame's identity in the first place, because for the juror that was not part of the case.)

But I can sorta understand someone who, having convicted a guy for a seemingly non-violent crime*, ends up feeling burdened by the weight of responsibility and even remorse at the knowledge that s/he's affecting another human's life. I served on a jury and found it very difficult to find the defendent guilty for a burglary charge, though the evidence was overwhelming. I did my duty and voted with my head, not my (young and bleeding) heart, but immediately afterward I still had pangs of remorse. Eventually I sucked it up and accepted the fact that I'd merely played my duly appointed role as a necessary cog in justice's machinery. The guy did the crime, he's gotta do the time.

Thus too with Libby, and hopefully the juror will see it that way soon -- well, assuming she's not secretly a repug shill, which I doubt since she'd have simply hung the jury.

* If the conviction had been for the Plame-betrayal, that's another story. I think the prosecution would have been able to better explain that it was a vicious, malicious and reckless attack on Plame and her colleagues that could have deadly consequences.