Posted on 07/10/2011 8:46:37 AM PDT by Kaslin
Casey Anthony's acquittal of the killing of her precious child, Caylee, has shocked the nation. Many who watched the trial on TV – and who were not constrained from taking into account inadmissible evidence, the punditry of various talking heads, or the overwhelming public sentiment against Ms. Anthony – have been critical of the jury's verdict. Among those most vehement in their condemnation of the jury are TV notables Bill O'Reilly and Nancy Grace. Their indignation is shared by those who feel the verdict represented a gross miscarriage of justice.
Cases like this call the value of trial by jury into question for some. But critics should take some important points into consideration: In American jurisprudence, an accused wrongdoer is presumed innocent. The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. The jury is not permitted to consider evidence that doesn't reach a certain threshold of reliability and they aren't permitted to take into account matters outside the evidence. They aren't entitled to discuss the case among themselves, or even form an opinion about the case, until all the evidence is in. They can't discuss the case with anyone other than their fellow jurors, and if any reasonable doubt exists about the crime(s) charged, they cannot convict. It is not enough for the jury to "know" that the accused is guilty as charged. The charges must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Most freedom loving people agree that these are important safeguards which must be met before one accused of a crime can be deprived of their life or liberty.
Trial by jury is not a recent phenomenon. It dates back over a thousand years, and its use has been documented in a variety of civilizations. The right to trial by jury has been particularly prominent in the American system of law and justice. When the Founders enumerated their grievances in the Declaration of Independence, King George's denial to the colonists of the right to trial by jury was in the forefront of their complaints. George Mason famously refused to sign the Constitution unless the right to trial by jury was made explicit. Thomas Jefferson made clear the value he placed on juries when he said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution." Its importance is highlighted by the fact that the right to trial by jury is expressly referenced in not one, but three of the amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights.
As Americans, we tend to take the right to trial by jury for granted; but it should not difficult to imagine the horror of living in a society in which the State possesses absolute power. Millions of people around the world live in societies that don't allow for trial by jury. When they are accused of wrongdoing, they aren't afforded an opportunity to defend themselves. No jury of their peers decides their guilt or innocence. Their lives and freedom are subject to the whims of those who hold power. Their tribunals – if they exist at all – are mere kangaroo courts which serve only as an eye wash. "Verdict first, trial later" is their modus operandi. Even here in America there was a time when perverted justice prevailed, when the word of a single white man could spell death for a politically and legally powerless African American.
This is why the right to trial by jury is essential.
Our Founding Fathers recognized that the collective judgment of ordinary people, while not perfect, is the most reliable, most just method of resolving conflicts in America's courtrooms. Does the jury system and its protections mean that sometimes the guilty will go free? The answer is yes. Alan Dershowitz addressed this in a recent article discussing the Casey Anthony verdict:
"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. Abraham admonishes God for planning to sweep away the innocent along with the guilty and asks Him whether it would be right to condemn the sinners of Sodom if there were 10 or more righteous people among them. God agrees and reassures Abraham that he would spare the city if there were 10 righteous. From this compelling account, the legal standard has emerged."
A justice system that allows for the possibility of the guilty going free is undoubtedly unpalatable for those who wish to see Caylee Anthony's death avenged, but it is a standard that recognizes and upholds the notion that life and liberty should not be deprived without due process of law. It's not a perfect system, but none better has yet been devised by man.
None of that matters apparently. Nothing matters except she was found not guilty, that’s the end of it.
The case against Casey Anthony was circumstancial. Juries are instructed that inferences may be permissibly drawn from such evidence, and those inferences may or may not support a guilty verdict. I haven’t heard one talking head, even those who are lawyers, explain how circumstancial eveidence is distinguished from direct evidence, and how the jury could do what it did. Criminal lawyers need to explain jury instructions in closing argument (the instructions are read to the jury before closing in my jurisdiction). When a juror says “we thought she was guilty but the state didn’t prove its case”, it’s because the prosecutor failed to educate the jury about inferences and reasonable doubt.
Look, the jury rendered the verdict and they acquitted her. Do I think she was guilty? Yes. I'm not going to frame the rest of my life based on this event.
You and quite a few other’s keep spouting that vigilante crap.
Don’t see anyone here calling for a rope. I certainly don’t.
That however does not change the fact that no one will ever be held responsible for the death of a two year old little girl. But whatever.
“Our Constitutional Republic depends on a well-informed, educated populace. It is the lifeblood.”
We are obviously becoming very anemic and weaker by the year.
I don't know what your beliefs are, but there is one court that she and all of us will face. One that is inescapable.
Not really. It continues to make the same mistakes that others defending this jury make. One, that cricizing this jury and this decision is an attack on the system.
...and I suspect that you will be getting attacked by those who became emotionally invested in this young womans’ guilt."
And two, that critics must be emotionally biased and poorly informed.
News flash. You can be dispassionate and have well founded views based on the evidence, and think the jury was wrong. And you can think they were wrong in this case and still believe in the jury system.
"Knowing that someone is guilty and proving it are two vastly different things."
Defenders also routinely make the intellectually lazy step of assuming that because the jury acquited that it's somehow given the crime wasn't proven. Again, false assumption. The jury could have, and did in this case, ignored the evidence to reach its decision.
I have read where one of the jurors could not render a guilty verdict because there was not a cause of death and that was what lead to reasonable doubt. That makes no sense to me. Why not look at reasonable actions?
IF a child drowned, is it reasonable to duct tape their mouths shut, wrap them in a garbage bag and dump in a swamp OR does calling 9-11 for help and God forbid the child dies, give the child the dignity of a proper burial?
If a child goes missing do you call the police or do you look for your child during the day and party at night?
When the police finally become involved do you help them find your child or do you send them on a wild goose chase?
When the defendants history is one of lies and distortions how could anyone find the defenses convoluted theories credible? People whose families suffer terrible accidents stage them as murders all the time! /s
Has anyone ever heard of a case where a 2 yr. old wanders off with duct tape, puts it across their face, places themselves in plastic bag in a swamp and goes to sleep and accidentally dies?
And today I read where some of the jurors have hired PR firms and are willing to SELL their stories!!!! We live in a sick society!
I'll bet she would have plead to a lesser charge, say manslaughter with a 20 year sentence.
I’m gonna stop posting on these threads, it’s all the same.
Go have a good Sunday, relax and if you got kids hugs ‘em.
Yes, were being bled alright. Bleeding profusely due to injuries exacted by the left. They control everything.
Casey Anthony: The System Worked
-- snip --
Casey Anthony was not found innocent of her daughter's murder, as many commentators seem to believe. She was found "not guilty." And therein lies much of the misunderstanding about the Anthony verdict.
This misunderstanding is exacerbated by the pervasiveness of TV shows about criminal cases. On television and in the movies, crimes are always solved. Nothing is left uncertain. By the end, the viewer knows whodunit. In real life, on the other hand, many murders remain unsolved, and even some that are "solved" to the satisfaction of the police and prosecutors lack sufficient evidence to result in a conviction. The Scottish verdict "not proven" reflects this reality more accurately than its American counterpart, "not guilty."
-- snip --
She was acquitted of the lesser charges too.
There is no evidence that Casey duct taped Caylee mouths shut, wrapped her in a garbage bag and dumped her in a swamp. For all we know, it could have been her boyfriend or even her father. There was no proof presented of who committed murder.
Exactly. The circumstantial and forensic evidence provided the proof, but the jury chose not to accept that 'proof' in the face of glaring absurdity in the theory of defense. As I said in another thread:
With circumstantial evidence, one must consider ‘circumstances’. These sets of circumstances determine the probability or improbability of an event or ‘chain’ of events. In other words, the circumstances ARE the proof. This silly notion that the state did not ‘prove’ it’s case is merely the jury choosing to accept the highly improbable over the highly probable. If someone shows me an object that appears to be an apple, I would find it very probable that it is indeed an apple. While I may not be able to bite into it for absolute ‘proof’, I would find it highly improbable that is, in fact, an orange.
Thanks, not unwilling to admit even Prof. Derscowitz is right once in a while. Maybe we all learn something and become more informed citizens from this tragedy if nothing else.
I'm talking about a plea bargain before the trial. In many cases like this, the Prosecution would offer a deal for a lesser charge because they have a risk of losing at trial.
At the same time, the defendant might plead guilty to a lesser charge so as not to risk a Murder One conviction that might get them the death penalty.
Anyone read that story yesterday where the Octomom was on a plane with her 8 screaming kids and their screaming was annoying actress Kristen Johnson, so she and Octomom had it out? I thought that was pretty ironic. A single mother annoying a Hollywood actress.
Except for garbage posts like this, I would stay OFF the 'system' worked threads. The prosecution presented and the defense NEVER challenged the words right out of CASEY'S own mouth was that SHE was the one and the ONLY one who had custody of that child when that child went missing to 'Zanny' the 'Nanny'. You are showing your willing 'whatever' by continuing to make claims you are for whatever reason willingly to continue to make.
Then why didn’t she say that? Oh bother never mind.
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.