Russianwolf
Member
And if we don't see that as a failure, then that is the problem.
Casey Anthony acquitted of killing daughter
- Thread starter OKLAHOMAN
- Start date
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
And if we don't see that as a failure, then that is the problem.
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
bitshird
Member
I believe we need more justice and less Law, Given the shoddy work of the prosecutor and the impassioned Mr Baez it's not much wonder we have jails and prisons filled to overflowing capacity with minor drug violations, yet with enough good press and stupid pet tricks in court, murderers get off. How ever I think it far better that 5 guilty walk rather than one wrongful conviction. particularly in a Capital murder case, even if it were scum like OJ and this last unspeakable woman, at the very least she should be shunned by civilization, perhaps put out in the desert, (at least she couldn't drown)
Roy: I think you are reading the judges mind. I fully expect her to walk. After 29 years in Law Enforcement, retiring as lead "street level" crime scene investigator for the Indianapolis police department in 1998, I could tell you some things about prosecution or THE LACK OF 
IPD_Mrs
Member
I have to agree with you on this one. Not Guilty doesn't equal Innocent, though is a better way of putting it. At the start of sitting on a jury and again at the end, jurors are given specific instructions as to what is expected of them.
While MANY of us don't like the verdict - it was absolutely the correct verdict (which btw doesn't equal accurate.) Based on the laws of our great nation, regardless of whether or not Casey Anthony killed her daughter or not, the prosecution HAS to prove that as FACT beyond any REASONABLE DOUBT. The prosecutor did not do that, hell he wasn't even nice enough to get a sympathy vote in my book. Having doubt that someone committed a crime is not the same as believing they are innocent - Regardless of a dictionary definition (no offense Smitty - I've had this same conversation with others). INSANE is also a LEGAL definition - but if you go to a psychiatrist, therapist or other person allowed to diagnosis individuals with mental illness you would note that it is NOT a medical diagnosis. Still, many people are found not guilty of crimes due to a statement that they are insane.
HOWEVER, our justice system doesn't legally allow jurors to make a verdict based on emotion, "maybe's," reporter hype or pure gut instinct. I have to say Thank God for that! If jurist were allowed to make decisions based on those factors there would be a LOT of innocent people in jail and our FREEDOM would really be nothing more than spit on a sidewalk.
Having sat on a jury one time, I can tell you how HARD it is to come back with a not guilty verdict when someone is facing a life changing situation (even harder though to say guilty if the case isn't proven) . . .
Mrs.
While MANY of us don't like the verdict - it was absolutely the correct verdict (which btw doesn't equal accurate.) Based on the laws of our great nation, regardless of whether or not Casey Anthony killed her daughter or not, the prosecution HAS to prove that as FACT beyond any REASONABLE DOUBT. The prosecutor did not do that, hell he wasn't even nice enough to get a sympathy vote in my book. Having doubt that someone committed a crime is not the same as believing they are innocent - Regardless of a dictionary definition (no offense Smitty - I've had this same conversation with others). INSANE is also a LEGAL definition - but if you go to a psychiatrist, therapist or other person allowed to diagnosis individuals with mental illness you would note that it is NOT a medical diagnosis. Still, many people are found not guilty of crimes due to a statement that they are insane.
HOWEVER, our justice system doesn't legally allow jurors to make a verdict based on emotion, "maybe's," reporter hype or pure gut instinct. I have to say Thank God for that! If jurist were allowed to make decisions based on those factors there would be a LOT of innocent people in jail and our FREEDOM would really be nothing more than spit on a sidewalk.
Having sat on a jury one time, I can tell you how HARD it is to come back with a not guilty verdict when someone is facing a life changing situation (even harder though to say guilty if the case isn't proven) . . .
Mrs.
The definition I gave for innocent - is a standard dictionary definition, not a legal one. A jury (in most jurisdictions) does not get a choice to vote "innocent" A jury can choose only between Guilty and Not Guilty.
A Jury can can choose between Guilty and Not Guilty by reason of insanity in some trials (I think only if the defense has pled that) usually where the fact of "who done it" are stipulated and the trial is really about "why" they did it.
Not being present during the jury's deliberations in this case I am not convinced that I can make any determination of what they believed. I (and society in general) can only go by what they said. Society (at least in the organized or legal sense) must treat her as being innocent. Regardless of personal opinion.
I personally think that if she were actually guilty of murder, with 3 years to prepare a case the police and prosecutor should have been able to get enough evidence for a conviction. That they did not present sufficient evidence to convince a jury might mean the prosecutor and/or the police did a poor job, that she is exceptionally clever or that the evidence wasn't collected because it didn't exist and she didn't do it.
I know I have seen cases on American Justice where it seemed there was much less to go on and still the police were able to get enough forensic evidence to get a conviction. But the evidence was really there.
A Jury can can choose between Guilty and Not Guilty by reason of insanity in some trials (I think only if the defense has pled that) usually where the fact of "who done it" are stipulated and the trial is really about "why" they did it.
Not being present during the jury's deliberations in this case I am not convinced that I can make any determination of what they believed. I (and society in general) can only go by what they said. Society (at least in the organized or legal sense) must treat her as being innocent. Regardless of personal opinion.
I personally think that if she were actually guilty of murder, with 3 years to prepare a case the police and prosecutor should have been able to get enough evidence for a conviction. That they did not present sufficient evidence to convince a jury might mean the prosecutor and/or the police did a poor job, that she is exceptionally clever or that the evidence wasn't collected because it didn't exist and she didn't do it.
I know I have seen cases on American Justice where it seemed there was much less to go on and still the police were able to get enough forensic evidence to get a conviction. But the evidence was really there.
btboone
Member
You would think that there would at least be a child endangerment charge. Going 30 days without ever filing a report that she was missing!? (And partying like there's no tomorrow.) The parents actually had to report it. Isn't that a bit reckless deserving of some time behind bars?
MesquiteMan
Retired Head Moderator
I could not have said it better, Linda. My sentiments exactly.