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.
It makes no sense that the jury acquitted her of all charges- even if they believed she was abused- she still abused Caylee by not looking for her/reporting what happened and instead going partying.
I can understand the jury not believing George, I found it hard to believe anyone in that family. I think as messed up as Casey is, most think there has to be a reason and the answer is in the house she grew up in- basically one or both parents. It could be that she is just flat mentally ill with no real reason- but it also makes it easier to believe some type of abuse.
I have no idea why the parents continue to give her money- I wouldn’t if she was my child and I had no part in Caylee’s death or cover-up. Just me, but if one of my kids is sorry enough to murder my grandbaby I would be done with them.
I became emotionally involved with this trial because I, UNLIKE YOU (I am willing to bet a couple-a paychecks), watched the damn thing. They didn’t prove it??? Oh, really? PROVE that they didn’t prove it! Are you taking the word of those idiot, lazy jurors? Or maybe the Criminal Defense attorneys chiming in - the same upstanding guys who defended OJ and THOSE jurors? HAHAHAHA!
No I didn’t listen to the talking heads, I never listen to them about anything, ESPECIALLY not show trials. I have almost none of the evidence the jury was presented. I can take in plenty of information but I don’t have all the information the jury has. I am able to come to reasonable conclusions, but I also understand that because my information set is different than yours or the jury’s my conclusion will probably be different.
Nobody is calling anybody a simpleton. you’re the one obsessed on that word. I’m pointing out, the same as the media is, that information sets are different and therefore conclusions are different and nobody needs to be a simpleton to have different conclusions.
To me the case revolves around one sentence from the prosecutor. He said in his closing argument “we don’t know how she died, we don’t know when she died, we do know somebody in that house killed her”. To me that sentence reeks of reasonable doubt. If I was sitting on a jury and the prosecutor said that I’d vote to acquit regardless of anything else that’s gone on. To me if the prosecutor gets to the end of the trial with that many unknowns there’s no way to convict. That’s me, that’s my conclusion from my information. People who disagree aren’t simpletons, they just have a different information set.
Excellent post.
For the whole trial. They wind up discussing this stuff the whole time, and that changes how the group digests the information.
Right now I would rather see a guilty murderer go to jail for life than see any person spell “whether” incorrectly. That is how digusted I am with those LAZY, IDIOT jurors. Sorry.
I, UNLIKE YOU (I am willing to bet a couple-a paychecks), watched the damn thing.
Sorry, you win that bet...I have a life. I don’t have to prove a damned thing. A jury of 12 sat there and watched the trial from day one and let her walk.....I am not saying she didn’t do it, I am saying that given the justice system that we have, the defense won. They got her off. Had there been direct evidence of Casey murdering Caylee, I don’t think that the prosecutor would have held it back....do you?
Intersting? Ha. Watching an idiot trying to explain why he is not an idiot will not be interesting.
There was plenty of evidence. The jury was LAZY and did not take time to ask questions about the confusing charges, spend a minute reviewing the evidence, nor deliberate.
If you didn’t watch it because you “have a life”, what the hell are you doing on this thread? Shut up if you don’t know what you are talking about.
While I don’t necessarily disagree with your premise, even a cursory knowledge of the facts causes one to be unable to dismiss guilt on that statement alone.
Casey tried to blame the loss of her child on a baby-sitter, her ex, her father... and last but not least an accident.
The parents didn’t know where the kid was. They kept asking Casey and got nowhere.
She was finally forced to call in the police, but not before a considerable amount of partying and getting a tattoo that said, “The good life”
Acquit this woman? No.
Look you can call me obsessed over the word simpleton if you like, that’s what the folks who think Casey was guilty and criticize the jury are being cast as, and I’m going to push back on that for the B.S. propaganda that it is. You don’t have to like it.
LOL
LOL
What if she already knew the girl was dead? Why would that be negligence?
Actually Casey never did call police, in fact when her mother made the second 911 call she tried to get Casey to talk to them on the phone and Casey said she had nothing to talk to them about.
But none of that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that she killed the kid. It proves quite well that she’s no good and did something wrong, but what’s something. When being a jury member for a murder 1 trial you’re called upon to decide whether or not there’s evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused deliberately and premeditately killed the deceased. When the prosecutor then stands up and says “we don’t know how she died, we don’t know when she died, but we do know somebody in the house killed her” (and pay extra not to the word “somebody” he didn’t say Casey) that’s a far cry from saying Casey deliberately and with pre-meditation killed the kid.
Really the problem here is the prosecutor overreached. If you can’t manage to pin down a cause of death you’ll never get a 1st degree murder conviction. Had the prosecutor gone for negligent homicide he would have gotten a conviction. That’s the gap between being able to clearly show somebody did “something” wrong and being able to show that they deliberately killed someone. All of what you point out is evidence of the first, none of it is evidence of the second.
That’s NOT how people are being cast. That’s my point. Nobody is calling them that, nobody is implying it, you’re the only one saying it. If the media were doing that they’d be calling THEMSELVES simpletons since they’re the ones that have spent the last few years telling everybody Casey is guilty, it’s a slamdunk case, and her lawyer is an idiot.
Thanks for the correction. The grandmother calls in the police. Mom never does. Your kid has been missing for weeks by then (I believe), and mom says she has nothing to talk to the police about?
You know folks, I generally defend juries too, but with regard to this case the information available to convict is overwhelming.
It’s incredible the behavior and demeanor of Casey.
Florida Stadard Jury Instructions for Criminal Cases (Click on Homicide [#7] on the left menu)
I firmly believe Casey is seriously mentally ill. She was ruled sane enough to stand trial, but she is far from sane and there are a lot of people in prison with mental issues- so she is responsible for her actions.
I cannot imagine how the jury could have acquitted her of all charges...even negligent child abuse? That jury is as nutty as she is. I can understand the jurors that voted to acquit her to begin with more than I can those that voted guilty and let the others talk them out of it. Those that felt there was reasonable doubt at least were honest in their vote. The others were just too lazy and in too big of a hurry to get home to do their job of making the others at least go through the motions of deliberation. If I had been on the jury we would still be there or I would have hung that jury before going home.
I’d think Casey would fit a lot better in a BJ Clinton administration than with Baraq.
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.