I wasn’t going to touch this one, but #YouNeedaHelmet when you read some of the appalling and misguided comments about the Casey Anthony verdict. As everyone on the planet who hasn’t been living under a rock knows Casey Anthony was found not guilty of murder, aggravated child abuse and manslaughter for the death of her daughter. Here’s a fairly good news report on Tuesday’s court proceeding - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/casey-anthony-trial-verdict_n_890173.html#s303265&title=Casey_Anthony_Verdict
Many things bother me about the public nature of this trial and the outrage following the acquittal. A subtitle to a news article read “jury finds Casey Anthony did not murder her toddler.” We all should know that is not what a jury “finds” in a criminal trial. The jury finds the facts and the judge applies the law. Understanding the system and how it works is key to reflecting on the outcome.
There’s no question that facts of this case are egregious. A two-year old child’s remains were found in a plastic bag five months after her grandmother reported her missing. Casey never reported a missing child to the police. She didn’t even admit her daughter was missing for a month. She lied repeatedly and both her stories and her actions were, quite frankly, bizarre. Then there’s the shovel thing and the odor in the trunk business. But are those facts sufficient to convict Caylee Marie Anthony’s mother of her murder? Was she guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? The jury said no.
So, what does that acquittal mean? It means this case is over. Period. End of story. I am amazed how many seemingly educated, thoughtful people have been clamoring for a retrial and/or an appeal by the state of Florida. Are these the same people who were shooting illegal fireworks off at all hours of the night this past weekend celebrating our independence and our American way of life? Have they ever read the Constitution? Do they understand what it says, and, more importantly, what it means? I’m saddened to discover that they do not.
There are many troubling aspects to this media circus of a criminal proceeding. The graceless Nancy Grace is and has been a distraction if not a disgrace. Pun intended. The legal taking heads on the cable news networks have soundly and severely criticized Casey’s defense team and Jose Baez, in particular. These may be topics for another post, but let me end with this. We may never know what “really” happened but the jury has spoken. Let’s respect that.
Barbara,
ReplyDeleteI think that is very well written. Although I think that she is guilty, the evidence presented did not rise to the standard "beyond a reasonable doubt" to the jury. I believe most people do not understand what the standard "beynond a reasonable doubt" means, and I am not sure what law school Nancy Grace graduated from ,but I would tend to think that she missed the criminal law class that taught that standard, or she believes that she is God and knows everything. They don't understand that you cannot go by your gut feeling, but rather on the facts that are presented to you at trial. If we were talking about the lower standard of preponderance of the evidence, then there likely would have been a conviction. Is it more llikely than not, yes, but that it not what the jury was asked.
I don't envy the jurors that had to decide this case. It must have been a difficult case to decide on the facts, not on the gut instinct.
My question is... If you serve 3 years in jail and are then found not guilty, do you have recourse of any kind? If yes, could that be why the judge issued what seemed to me heavy sentences for misdemeanors? Four years, minus three served and good behaviour credit and thank you you're free to go. Whatcha think?
ReplyDeleteReasonable doubt. This concept has set many criminals loose I'm sure. What exactly is reasonable doubt for a juror. Is proof beyond a doubt the same as proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
ReplyDelete