Posted on 07/08/2011 7:54:08 AM PDT by throwback
'This case [is] about seeking justice for Caylee . . ." So argued the prosecutor in the Casey Anthony murder case. He was wrong, and the jury understood that.
A criminal trial is never about seeking justice for the victim. If it were, there could be only one verdict: guilty. That's because only one person is on trial in a criminal case, and if that one person is acquitted, then by definition there can be no justice for the victim in that trial.
A criminal trial is neither a whodunit nor a multiple choice test. It is not even a criminal investigation to determine who among various possible suspects might be responsible for a terrible tragedy. In a murder trial, the state, with all of its power, accuses an individual of being the perpetrator of a dastardly act against a victim. The state must prove that accusation by admissible evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.
Even if it is "likely" or "probable" that a defendant committed the murder, he must be acquitted, because neither likely nor probable satisfies the daunting standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, a legally proper result—acquittal in such a case—may not be the same as a morally just result. In such a case, justice has not been done to the victim, but the law has prevailed.
For thousands of years, Western society has insisted that it is better for 10 guilty defendants to go free than for one innocent defendant to be wrongly convicted. This daunting standard finds its roots in the biblical story of Abraham's argument with God about the sinners of Sodom.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I have no legal training, but I do not understand this statement. Seems to me there are four possibilities. If the defendant is guilty, but is acquitted, there is no justice for the victim. If the defendant is guilty and is convicted, there is justice for the victim. If the defendant is innocent, but is convicted, there is no justice for the victim. If the defendant is innocent and is acquitted there is no justice for the victim. I don't see how a conviction is necessarily justice for the victim, and if the trial were about justice for the victim, a conviction would be mandatory. Dershowitz also seems to presume that only one trial can be conducted against one suspect too. But I didn't go to Harvard.
His reference to G_d's treatment of Sodom as the basis for the standard for criminal conviction is interesting too. He cuts the story short, and fails to mention that the city was leveled nonetheless after the innocents were extracted. So I don't know if that's an example of G_d letting the guilty go to save the innocent.
I guess Caylee wrapped her own face with duct tape, then climbed into the pool.
Casey Anthony: Worked the System.
Now Casey and OJ can team up to find the REAL killers everywhere!
I believe in law until it interferes with justice.
The country needs to just let Casey ride off in the sunset (or the dark of night more likely) and put her on ignore!
The ‘reasonable doubt story’ is hogwash. If Caylee drowned, why the need for duct tape on her face?
At this point I’d like to see her tried for improper disposal of a body at the least. That wouldn’t be Double Jeopardy, right?
LOL!
It only showed how DUMBED DOWN the people on the jury are.
It’s rather frightening that people could not connect the dots and convict her.
I hope CIndy is tried for perjury.
We simply can NOT allow EMOTIONS to wink at LYING.
Cindy created a MONSTER and FAILED as her mother.
I was thinking the same thing, regarding your main paragraph. Regarding the Sodom thing, I think the author is just looking for the likely historical example.
I think a better example would be this: What kind of world would we live in if the court erred in the opposite direction? How would you live your life, knowing that if accused of a crime it was up to you to PROVE you didn’t do it? We convict enough innocent men with our current system. Imagine what this would do to every single man “with understanding of the implications”, regarding his world view and “safety” within his own life.
For starters, the Duke LaCross team would be behind bars right now. It would have been a no brainer.
LOL!
It only showed how DUMBED DOWN the people on the jury are.
It’s rather frightening that people could not connect the dots and convict her.
I hope CIndy is tried for perjury.
We simply can NOT allow EMOTIONS to wink at LYING.
Cindy created a MONSTER and FAILED as her mother.
LOL!
It only showed how DUMBED DOWN the people on the jury are.
It’s rather frightening that people could not connect the dots and convict her.
I hope CIndy is tried for perjury.
We simply can NOT allow EMOTIONS to wink at LYING.
Cindy created a MONSTER and FAILED as her mother.
LOL!
It only showed how DUMBED DOWN the people on the jury are.
It’s rather frightening that people could not connect the dots and convict her.
I hope CIndy is tried for perjury.
We simply can NOT allow EMOTIONS to wink at LYING.
Cindy created a MONSTER and FAILED as her mother.
“Casey Anthony: Worked the System.”
CORRECT!
And I add EMOTIONS and feeling BAD for the family also helped them to AVOID the TRUTH.
The defense was a fantasy. It is your classic case of Demoncrappers calling the Prosection of what THEY ARE. Lying fantasies made up the “defense” for this lying slut.
Caylee was murdered. That's not the issue. The problem was, the prosecution never proved beyond a reasonable doubt who murdered her. Sure, we all think it was her mother. But there was never any direct evidence presented that backed up that assertion. That's where the case fell apart.
Does the fact that Dershowitz was one of the lawyers that let O.J. Simpson escape the rope for his murders help you understand better?
I couldn’t agree more. Cindy Anthony SHOULD be charged with purgery. I don’t think she will but to me she is not a sympathetic person at all. She lied, under oath, in an attempt to help free a killer. She knew she was lying and who knows how that lie might have influenced the jury. What if her lie was the difference in guilty and not guilty? Is she still sympathetic? Is she still a victim? No, at that point she is a co-conspirator.
...everybody assumes that the jury did due diligence and "weighed all the possibilities", dug thru all the lies and perversions and came to the conclusion that the "evidence" could not convict Casey.....
....but....
...what if the jury, after listening to the bullshit from both sides for a couple of months, every one just wanted to go home and reclaim their lives. Nobody on that jury wanted to spend one more day going thru all the trash and looking at all the convoluted "evidence" again. They were all getting annoyed at each other, some of them even coming to hate their "fellow" jurors....
.....they just wanted this circus to end....
...so the least "damage" to the system would be to just let Casey go..
..so that's what they did.
Casey walks...
Kaylee eats dirt...forever.
OJ Simpson, enough said.
Actually you are wrong. One of the jurors stated the biggest problem they had was that the prosecution did not prove she was murdered. No cause of death. If that is true then they are idiots. We know Casey was involved in hiding the body because she said so. Not sure what more you need. Child is dead, it was obviously not an accident, mom admits she was there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.