Casey Anthony Trail

[Landshark]

People here are up in arms.  They are ranting and raving, and violently upset.

I understand reasonable doubt.  The prosecution didn't have any hard evidence, it seems.

This is exactly what I was thinking.  I remember seeing the movie Training Day.  Denzel Washington said this to Ethan Hawke several times, "It's not what you know, it's what you can prove."

[jtex316]

I didn't pay attention or follow this trial at all. So I really can't say much.

But it's still pretty shocking that she's only going to be doing some minor time and some minor charges.

I also think that at some point you have to allow some common-sense into your decision-making process. It's not fair to families like this one and the Simpson family for two obviously guilty people to not have to serve any time or hold any accountability based off of technicalities and poor prosecution / crime scene work / etc...

If this cannot be, then we really need to look at the "trial by jury" system itself, which I believe is very flawed. How about a "trial by judges", where highly intelligent and integrity individuals hold the balance of someone's life in their hands, and not a group of old retirees and people with nothing better to do?

Anyways - this bitch will live free but it's also a technicality - she won't ever get hired anywhere or respected anywhere. You will see her doing porn and winding up on tabloids high on drugs soon enough.

[Dave Gray]

In this case, a guilty person probably will walk free.  But, the system is a net positive.  The court of public opinion is no place to have a trial.  You have to have evidence and the prosecution didn't.  Over the long run, it's a lot better to let the guilty walk free than to prosecute the innocent. 

You need to make legal decisions with a clear head, free of your personal emotions, gut feelings, and based on evidence, not speculation and circumstance.

[BoSoxGrl]

I followed every second of this trial.  I am ok with the verdict although I do not understand the logic (You didn't kill your kid but you definitely lied about it).

But I am not a juror stuck in a media vacuum where I had never heard anything about the case besides what was present in court.

The good thing is that a lot of people watched this...more than the OJ trial just with the onset of live streaming and social networking.  I bet you at least one of these people who watched this are crazy, own guns, and have nothing to lose....and because of THAT Casey Anthony needs to consider relocating for serious.

[jtex316]

The common-sense part that I am asking for here is for some stipulation that states she can never have kids ever again, period.

One fact that was presented is that she waited X number of days to report her child missing. Any number greater than 0 that you can replace X with = a shitty parent who should not be a parent to any kid, ever. I can live with something like that.

[Phishfan]

If this cannot be, then we really need to look at the "trial by jury" system itself, which I believe is very flawed. How about a "trial by judges", where highly intelligent and integrity individuals hold the balance of someone's life in their hands, and not a group of old retirees and people with nothing better to do?

Most of the legal experts on TV are agreeing with the verdict. I don't think your plan would have changed the decision much.

[Dave Gray]

She was found guilty of lying to police.  Sterilization isn't an appropriate punishment for that.

You have to separate your emotions and look only at facts.  Not guilty is not guilty.  There's no such thing as "kinda guilty".

Even though I think that she did something bad, I don't know what that something bad is.  There just wasn't evidence to tell whether or not she outright murdered the kid, neglected her to the point that she killed her by accident, or if she's just a fruit-loop who found her kid dead (by someone else in the family) and then carried around the body.

[Pappy13]

If this cannot be, then we really need to look at the "trial by jury" system itself, which I believe is very flawed. How about a "trial by judges", where highly intelligent and integrity individuals hold the balance of someone's life in their hands, and not a group of old retirees and people with nothing better to do?

I'm betting that if you did that, even more would be found not guilty than trial by your peers. Certainly in this case the judges would have found her not guilty it seems.

[Landshark]

I'm betting that if you did that, even more would be found not guilty than trial by your peers. Certainly in this case the judges would have found her not guilty it seems.

The trial by jury concept was brought about because for decades, a judge had the power to put away someone he didn't like, regardless of guilt or innocence.

[Brian Fein]

There just wasn't evidence to tell whether or not she outright murdered the kid, neglected her to the point that she killed her by accident, or if she's just a fruit-loop who found her kid dead (by someone else in the family) and then carried around the body.

Because any of these scenarios is possible within the confines of the prosecution's case is, by definition, reasonable doubt.  Therefore, the verdict is correct.

You can not rely on people's "common sense" to make the jump and fill the gap about what she "probably" did.  It needs to be cold, hard, evidence and facts that are undeniable.

[jtex316]

If a trial by jury is a fair system, then why did it produce an unfair result?

[Sunstroke]

Casey Who?

[Dave Gray]

If a trial by jury is a fair system, then why did it produce an unfair result?

Fair doesn't mean "correct".  It means that it's the same for everyone.

The bottom line is this:

We have to choose a level for what constitutes guilty.  In our case, we choose "a reasonable doubt".  With that, you're going to let the occasional person walk free that is guilty.  The alternative is to loosen that definition, and let the occasional innocent person get convicted and jailed or put to death.  Given those choices, I choose the prior every single time.

[Cathal]

Sterilization isn't an appropriate punishment for that.

I didn't watch any of the trial but if she really didn't call the cops until 30 days later after her child went missing, then I don't know why you wouldn't support sterilization just for that.

[BoSoxGrl]

I've said this several times today.  I think she is guilty but I am ok with the verdict.  It's not like she can go back to any sort of "normal" life.  No one is going to hire her.  She doesn't get a quiet life on Suburban Drive (The 'Bella Vita' as she says) without a constant barrage of media scrutiny...and like I said before, someone will probably whack her Goodfellas style.  I am ok with that.  I think that is plenty of punishment.

That said, emotion aside, I think there was a general lack of common sense.  Which all jurors were asked to bring with them into deliberation.  You don't not report a missing child for 31 minutes let alone 31 days...and you don't find duct take on a body that died by "accident."  Let alone duct tape that isn't produced anymore and was found in the Anthony home.