Posted on 07/06/2011 6:32:41 AM PDT by Kaslin
On Tuesday, a Florida jury found Casey Anthony not guilty of first-degree murder in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee Marie.
As so often happens in high profile cases, the jury was wrong.
Casey clearly murdered her daughter. Her mom, Cindy, reported that Caylee was missing on July 15, 2008. Casey's cover story was unbelievably ridiculous. When Casey's mom, Cindy, confronted Casey at Casey's boyfriend's apartment, Casey actually claimed that a random baby sitter nobody had ever met had taken Caylee away over a month beforehand.
Cindy called the cops, informing them, "I found my daughter's car today. And it smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car." Sure enough, cadaver dogs identified the trunk of Casey's car as a dead body location, and scientists confirmed that a body had decomposed back there. A few months after a jury indicted Casey, police found Caylee's corpse in the woods near Casey's home, duct tape on her head.
The defense did a Johnny Cochrane routine -- they blamed everybody within a 10 mile radius of the murder for the murder. Defense attorney Jose Baez suggested that Casey's dad, George, had sexually abused her during her childhood, without any evidence whatsoever. Baez also claimed that Caylee had drowned in the pool while George was at home, and that George had been involved in dumping the body.
There was no evidence to any of this. It was pure conjecture, a sociopathic response to being caught red-handed. And Casey Anthony is a sociopath: outwardly charming, pathologically lying, indecently self-centered, lacking in shame or guilt, promiscuous, exploitative and irresponsible, and willing to hurt anyone and everyone in order to get her way.
So, why did the jury acquit her? Because the jury system, as currently run, is stupid.
Yes, jury trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution (although only with regard to federal cases). It was originally considered a hallmark of civilized criminal justice because citizens did not want to be subjected to government inquisitions, with the court stacked against them. Juries were supposed to be a bulwark against governmental encroachment.
Nowadays, juries have become a hallmark of our heavily bureaucratized system. Those who have day jobs are eager to avoid serving on juries, mainly because the convoluted rules of procedure and evidence have turned summary trials into week-long events. By and large, only the least offensive -- and not coincidentally, the dumbest -- tend to be selected for juries. As the aphorism goes, the problem with juries is that they are generally composed of the 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
The phrase "show trial" now means something different -- it means a trial that is a show. That's precisely what O.J. and Casey Anthony were about. Every juror expects to see Sam Waterston get up and deliver opening remarks, and damned if the court system won't do its best to provide that entertainment. The provision of the Constitution that requires a public trial is now used to ensure that trials become media circuses.
Should we embrace the European inquisitorial system, in which judges ask the questions and come up with the decisions? Should we hire professional jurors?
The answer doesn't lie in abolishing the jury system utterly, but in revamping it completely.
The rationale behind juries is still important, particularly with regard to politically-oriented trials: We don't want judges paid by government to have full authority to condemn those of different political persuasions. And the rationale behind a public trial is also still relevant -- we don't want Star Chambers or clandestine hearings. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
By the same token, however, our current jury system is broken beyond repair. If we are truly to restore justice to our system of justice, we must pursue the best and brightest for service, make it easier for them to serve, make the rules of evidence and procedure more efficient, and allow justice to run more smoothly. Most Americans would be willing to serve on a jury for a day. Few would be willing to do so for a week and even fewer for a month. We need more day-long trials and less month-long trials. We need more justice and less showmanship.
Caylee Anthony, sadly, wasn't just the victim of her mother here. She was the victim of a system that did not mete out justice to her murderer. There will be many more cases like Caylee Anthony until we do something to solve this mess.
Yes, jurors have a lot more rights than they know. However, judges have WAAAAAYYYY too much power in this country.
Let's use what I said without running it through a veg-o-matic, shall we?
In the absence of a forensic determination of time and cause of death, it cannot be proven that she was put in the trunk while alive, nor can it be determined that she died as the result of a malicious act.
If....
Big little word, "if".
The bottom line is that the prosecution could not prove the cause of death.
We can suspect, we can even believe, but in the absence of proof, we don't know.
The prosecution failed to make its case, and the jury did what it should have.
Had the prosecution brought other charges which could have been proven, perhaps there would have been a conviction on those.
They never proved when, where or how Lacey died.
You seriously need a sarcasm tag. I know, it seems ridiculous sometimes, but after some of the comments I’ve seen by so called Constitution loving FReepers the last 2 days, it’s important to tag it, so we know who the hypocrites are and who the ones merely mocking them are....
A good mother???: How long would it take you to notify authorities if youyr kid was missing?
I saw a video where Casey was talking to her parents...I watched Casey's face change...She has a vicious temper!!
Thanks, tax-chick.
What bothers me about the hulabaloo about this verdict is that people in general are so incredibly ignorant about the legal system, how it works, and what court decisions they should really be paying attention to.
“Should We Abolish the Jury System?”
Another attack on the Constitution. These attacks come about every other day, it seems!
Why would this be an attack on the Constitution? The author is just asking a question and does not say that it should be abolished. What he suggest is, that it should be revamped
The answer doesn't lie in abolishing the jury system utterly, but in revamping it completely. (Twelfth paragraph)
I wonder if we shouldn’t add a ‘not proven’ verdict to our system.
Correct. I guess Ben should have went to the police himself and gave them all that evidence he must have to know, for a fact, his contention is true.
Abolish. Funny to see the defenders of the Constitution, or rather the parts of the Constitution they like. What about the right to a speedy trial? What about a jury of one’s “peers”. Conveniently ignored. This case, the O.J. case, the Amirault cases, many others we never hear of, point to the obsolescence of the jury system. In the Anthony case the jurors themselves should have been convicted of criminal negligence.
Do I think she is guilty? Yes. Did the prosecution prove her guilty? No.
This Nation is ruled by laws, not opinions.
The jury did not find her "innocent", they said they could not find sufficient proof to find her guilty.
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.