Very good article and I suspect that you will be getting attacked by those who became emotionally invested in this young womans’ guilt. Knowing that someone is guilty and proving it are two vastly different things.
There seems to be a misconception that many in the media are operating under. The premise is, you have had to listen to the talking heads and consider evident not presented to the jury to come to a conclusion the jury was wrong.
That really angers me. The implication is that outside the jury, everyone is a simpleton, unable to think or reason for themselves.
Okay media players, just where do the members of the jury come from? Oh yes from that pool of simpletons you keep denigrating.
What a bunch of collective dumb f--ks we have in our media these days.
it is a standard that recognizes and upholds the notion that life and liberty should not be deprived without due process of law.
Oh, if only, this standard applied to preborn, helpless babies in their mother’s womb. If only they could have their day in court!
The Biblical standard for the Death Penalty was "two eyewitnesses." They didn't have videotapes and DNA, but they knew about "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Prosecutor's error, going for Murder One. I hate it, but there it is.
The jury system is really the only thing that stands between us and the utmost, crushing tyranny. Surely in these darkening days of the early 21st Century we can see that.
I have no problem with “trial by jury”, and with accepting the Anthony verdict, for that matter. But one would be kinda brain-numb to look at situations like this and wonder what might be done to make the system better. (Better in the sense of having fewer cases where the guilty go free at the cost of the higher goal of not convicting the innocent).
One thing that occurs to me is how crimes are charged. I don’t know how, but it seems that in the interest of justice for ALL (including the victim) that if evidence does not support a conviction on the highest count (i.e. 1st deg. murder) but does support conviction on a lesser charge, that should be what happens. I don’t disagree with the ban on “double jeopardy”, but my understanding is, Casey cannot now be charge with much of anything stemming from the “same facts”, and that does not seem right.
Not guilty and innocent are two very different things.
Weather you agree or disagree, the jury said not guilty.
I would rather see a guilty person go free then convict an innocent person.
That said, she had better not, speed, run a red light, or J-walk.
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.
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!
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.
She got lucky.
Her lawyers got a great jury for her.
In Federal Court, she would have been found guilty in a two day trial.
One can disagree with the verdict like i do, question the need for the Griffin rule, and wonder what jackasses her attorneys and family are, how utterly stupid Jennifer Ford (juror)was.
And not be calling for dismantling the jury system and going for military tribunals.
If you follow where we have gone since Founders, we have implemented more and more layers to protect the accused and make it harder for the prosecution than it was in the Founder's day....just see Warren court for starters
So maybe the same folks lecturing people like me to shut up about this awful verdict and goofy jury should look at that evolutiuon when they toss out the canard that this is a trial with the constitution in balance.
(not the thread purveyor per se)
There are times when the accused is so obviously guilty strictly based on circumstantial evidence and apart from hard evidence that it defies logic to not find the defendant guilty of something. Casey Anthony is one. OJ Simpson is another. Whatever happened to common sense?
I'm tired of hearing about people who are "emotional" and judging the outcome with emotions. That's nonsense. One doesn't have to be "emotional" to look at the situation and come to a logical conclusion. People who can't see that Casey Anthony is guilty has some intellectual problems. How's that?
We no longer have justice in this country. We have whatever the whim of the people is today.
Trial by jury sounds good in theory. Except in reality, when actual people are put in there, remember these idiots are selected from the same group of dumbasses who voted O’shithead into office.
Approximately 70% of people who were polled across the nation disagree with the Anthony trial verdict.
Some say this was a verdict that snowballed out of control. Is that reasonable? How does that even pass muster at all?
How in the world can a jury render a verdict in a case as complex as this in less than eleven hours, before ever asking to examine the evidence that was on display in the court room, it’s bizarre…
Well the answer is actually relatively simple. They hardly ever took notes. Casey Anthony was acquitted by the jury on all counts of murder on July 5, 2011, when they ignored the evidence and believed her story to be evident that she held in secret while in jail for three years that Caylee drowned in her family’s swimming pool.
...By all means, it is incumbent upon us to exercise our 1st amendment rights to hold the jurors and all future jurors to an ever higher standard. The same standards hold true when the nation elects an anti-constitutionalist enemy of the free market. Follow the environmentalists...
Ergo our manmade system of justice is unjust.