A jury’s opinion is more informed

The weekly Question:  Do you think the sentence given to Noemi Acosta for the death of her 8-month-old son was appropriate?

Yes  29%    No  71%

Rest assured, having an opinion on a sentence handed a criminal defendant is a lot easier than serving on a jury that has to determine punishment. Jurors must weigh sometimes conflicting testimony and then argue among themselves to come to a decision.

That said, there was considerable community reaction to the three-year sentence assessed by an Ector County jury last week after 21-year-old Noemi Acosta pleaded guilty to intoxication manslaughter for the April 2007 death of her third child, Jesus Navarrette IV.
Jurors deliberated for seven hours before coming to the decision in a case that could have carried a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. Because Acosta will receive credit for time served since her June 2007 arrest, it's possible her time behind bars will soon end if the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles rules favorably.

Some undoubtedly feel the justice system failed because of the perceived light punishment for causing the death of an 8-month-old child in an accident while driving with a blood alcohol level that was twice the legal limit.

But the defendant's young age probably played a part in the jury's decision. And jurors undoubtedly took into account the mental impact the death of a child by her reckless behavior had on the mother.

There are no crystal balls for jurors to consult before deciding whether Acosta learned a very hard lesson or whether she might pose a threat to herself or others when she's back on the streets.

This is all part of our complex judicial system. People charged with crimes have a right to be judged by a jury of their peers. A different collect of people might have seen the case in a much harsher light. It's a prosecutor's job to seat jurors inclined toward heavy-handed punishment and a defense attorney's task to find sympathetic panel members.

In the end, the verdict pretty much speaks for itself. The system occasionally fails, but our judicial process is generally considered the best possible way to approach criminal behavior.

For that reason, we have to trust the judgment of a jury that got the closest possible review of the case from the opposing viewpoint and then spent the better part of a workday wrestling with what they perceived to be the best outcome.

In the end, we all can only hope that this will be Acosta's final brush with the law.