Contrarian view - Casey Anthony verdict vindicates, in a larger sense, the intent of the criminal trial system.
Caylee has not yet seen justice, certainly. And, perhaps, never will. But if that's true - that's the failure of the state, and not a knock on the defense.
The state had a pretty good position going in: Anthony was an unsympathetic defendant, accused of about the worst of crimes, killing a child essentially because they were inconvenient; she was convicted by the media, which shaped the public mood (and fed off of it - it was a symbiotic relationship - one I think points to a canker on our public soul, but I won't go down that path here). She didn't have a "dream team" of defense lawyers, bankrolled by a fortune (of course, she didn't have public defenders, either), no novel legal theories were floated - only the most basic: make the state prove their case to a jury. Not concoct arcane legal theories - simply make the state *prove* their case, in accordance with the rules of procedure and evidence.
Put another way - assume the verdict is correct, and that it was you in the dock. Isn't that how you would have wanted it to come out? Isn't this how you would expect it to come out?
This wasn't OJ, hinging on celebrity and the arcana of DNA evidence with a judge flummoxed by a high-priced legal team.
This was... us in the dock. And I would hope a jury would reach the same verdict in any case where the prosecution didn't prove it's case.
There is no perfect legal system. I admit I prefer one where the risk falls to the state, vice the defendant. I'm not a Napoleonic Code kind of fellow.
Caylee has not yet seen justice, certainly. And, perhaps, never will. But if that's true - that's the failure of the state, and not a knock on the defense.
The state had a pretty good position going in: Anthony was an unsympathetic defendant, accused of about the worst of crimes, killing a child essentially because they were inconvenient; she was convicted by the media, which shaped the public mood (and fed off of it - it was a symbiotic relationship - one I think points to a canker on our public soul, but I won't go down that path here). She didn't have a "dream team" of defense lawyers, bankrolled by a fortune (of course, she didn't have public defenders, either), no novel legal theories were floated - only the most basic: make the state prove their case to a jury. Not concoct arcane legal theories - simply make the state *prove* their case, in accordance with the rules of procedure and evidence.
Put another way - assume the verdict is correct, and that it was you in the dock. Isn't that how you would have wanted it to come out? Isn't this how you would expect it to come out?
This wasn't OJ, hinging on celebrity and the arcana of DNA evidence with a judge flummoxed by a high-priced legal team.
This was... us in the dock. And I would hope a jury would reach the same verdict in any case where the prosecution didn't prove it's case.
There is no perfect legal system. I admit I prefer one where the risk falls to the state, vice the defendant. I'm not a Napoleonic Code kind of fellow.
Plus, I have no fear that one way or another, Justice will be served (one of the benefits of having faith in an afterlife), and I even believe it to be likely that this stupid woman will end up pulling an OJ and getting herself locked away for something else somewhere in the future.
The people up in arms because "What about x? She killed that kid, I know it!!!' were obviously not on the jury.
This is how it's supposed to work. it doesn't mean the woman is innocent, all it means is that the case against her was not adequate to convict her. People forget that's how it's supposed ot work.
The standard is "beyond a *reasonable* doubt, not "any doubt". How many have actually sat on the jury? It is not as easy as it sounds.
The media may want it otherwise, but thank God for a country that can still get it right in spite of that gaggle of morons.
When the media begins making our decisions in both macro and micro scale issues, it is a frightening indication that we are in a death spiral down to oblivion as a nation.
May be that this is a small indication of better days to come...
Opinions on surrounding issues? Sure.
Item: this was a media circus. It shouldn't have gotten any press outside of Orlando, but the farging media thinks we're actually excited about the details of these cases. I'm not. I watch TeeVee for information that is of use to ME, and the information presented about this trial is not of the slightest interest to me.
Bread and circuses. We're no different than the ancient Romans. Our fate will likely be the same as well.
As a lawyer once told me, "The purpose of a trial isn't to see that justice is done, it's to insure that the law is satisfied. Never confuse justice with the law -- the two usually don't coincide."
In itself this presents the authorities with a super heavy burden to overcome should they attempt to conduct a case with a flimsey evidence trail. "Reasonable Doubt" seems to be tossed out the window in such situations. "Absolute Certainty" prevails.
If they had gone for a lesser charge, they might well have won - though she agrees with me that the prosecution didn't do their job well in this case.
That said, the rest of her comments would nestle comfortably with what Cap'n Bill said.
What Bill said. Too many strange "coincidences."
I have a feeling the prosecution should just stayed home on this one. Given the state of the would never be able to show how the child died and that pretty much put paid to a murder conviction.
Prosecutors have gotten pretty arrogant over the last 30 years. Nifong was not atypical among that bunch, just the loudest. Other than the PTR disaster, Nifong didn't do anything that prosecutors all over don't so. For Fed prosecutors it's even worse.
The whole country is screaming:"We know she's guilty! Why didn't the jury?"
To that I say; Can you prove it, beyond a reasonable doubt?
Otherwise, STFU!
Karma plays a long, slow game with those who upset her. She never loses, either.
"If you want a decision, go to court; if you want justice, go to church" is an old saying that has much good in it.
I think the jury came to close to the best decision they could.
But for the record, there has been some real life wisdom from this thread.
From htom, we get an important principle. “If you want a decision, go to court; if you want justice, go to church”. I agree with you, “is an old saying that has much good in it.”
From the “diplomatic wisdom” of ChrisP, we get this, in reply to those screaming for a conviction. “To that I say; Can you prove it, beyond a reasonable doubt? Otherwise, STFU!”
To Miss Ladybug, my personal opinion is the prosecutor had an opinion and that is what led the investigation. It should always be, the evidence leads the investigation. I believe the prosecutor was way out of his league for a conviction of murder one or manslaughter. The evidence was just NOT there and therefore, an acquittal was appropriate.
You're spot on Grumpy.