I heard accounts of Clarence Thomas's alleged sexual harassment. I heard the Senate confirm him anyway. And I'm outraged.

I saw the Rodney King videotape on the news. I heard the jury's verdict. And I'm outraged.

I heard the jury's verdict on the second Rodney King trial. And I'm outraged.

I heard months of news stories about John Bobbitt's alleged abuse. I heard the verdict. And I'm outraged.

I heard detailed descriptions of Lorena Bobbitt's response to her husband's alleged actions. I heard the jury's verdict. And I'm outraged.

Oh, I'm not outraged by the verdicts. I'm outraged by the reaction to the verdicts.

Because the Bobbitt trial is the most recent, let's look at that one. John was put on trial for spousal abuse and found not guilty. The jury decided, by seeing and hearing the evidence and by being instructed in the law, that the prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that John Bobbitt had committed the crime with which he was charged. (It's important to keep in mind that in such cases, the ruling is "not guilty"; it's not "innocent." There's a difference.)

Next came Lorena's trial. Lorena admitted, and the evidence seemed quite clear, that she had seriously wounded John. This was never in question. What was in question was whether or not she was mentally in control of herself when she did it. Through testimony, including that of professionals in psychiatry (or was it psychology), and an explanation of the law, the jury determined that she was not in control and was therefore not guilty by reason of insanity.

Then came the public outcry. (Granted, I'm basing this on what I've heard in conversations and radio and TV news.) As may be expected, it seemed that men generally disagreed with the verdict and women generally agreed. But that's beside the point.

I watched person-on-the-street interviews and comments made by more high-profile individuals. A man said the verdict was "outrageous." He went on to say that she acted in a totally unacceptable manner and that she had other options available to her, but she didn't take them.

Next, a women expressed her approval, because, "she (Lorena) was a victim." This woman said that she was happy with the verdict because she had heard men say Lorena should go to jail.

On a network morning news program, I heard the president of a large women's organization say the verdict was the right one because Lorena shouldn't be sent to jail while John gets rich from books and television so he can buy an expensive sports car to restore his sense of virility.

I'll admit there may be some merits to these arguments, but no one of them is relevant to the jury's decision. Again, the job of the jury is to listen to the evidence as it relates to the law, evaluate the relevance and credibility, and render a decision in accordance with the instructions given by the judge.

Maybe it's time we all got a course in the criminal justice system.

A jury is selected before a case is tried because it is necessary for that group of people to be exposed to all the evidence and testimony, and to be instructed in the applicable law, so that the verdict can be rendered with all the knowledge necessary to determine if a crime has been committed by the defendant. It is not the jury's charter to determine if the law is valid, or if justice would better be served by new or revised legislation, or if the law does not provide adequate punishment. That is the concept behind trial by jury.