Posted on 07/06/2011 6:32:41 AM PDT by Kaslin
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.