Casey Anthony NOT GUILTY?!

[SeeMyu]

As the New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/06/us/06casey.html) says


After nearly six weeks of testimony, a panel of seven women and five men decided that Ms. Anthony did not murder Caylee by dosing her with chloroform, suffocating her with duct tape and dumping her in a wooded area, as prosecutors claimed. They also did, however, find her guilty of lesser charges, of providing false information to law enforcement officers. The jury did not ask to review any evidence.

Hmm.. so I guess Caylee did all of this by herself? No I don't think so.

I mean everything is clear that Casey killed her daughter! How she searched "How to make chloroform" on Google. And how she blames the grandfather paniced and threw Caylee in the woods.. in a trash bag, ducktapped.
Who is this stupid to believe that Casey had nothing to do with her daughter's death..but that she is guilty of providing false evidence

:wtf: x 1000+


Caylee, a 2-year-old with cherubic cheeks and bright eyes, was last seen June 16, 2008. Her decomposed body was found six months later in a wooded area near the Anthony home. Despite her daughter’s disappearance, Ms. Anthony failed to report Caylee missing for 31 days and created a tangle of lies, including that a baby sitter kidnapped Caylee, to cover up the absence.
Yes. because I'm sure the baby sitter did all of this too.. but wait.. didn't you say the grandfather kidnapped Caylee?
Not to mention, Casey also got a tattoo in those 31 days that said "The Good Life".. :|

So, what do you actually think? Is she really guilty for killing her daughter? or is this all a misunderstanding?

[Whiteridur]

Maybe some context would be useful? Who is Casey Anthony? Case synopsis? Circumstances and evidence?

[Robodl95]

Maybe some context would be useful? Who is Casey Anthony? Case synopsis? Circumstances and evidence?
Maybe Europeans aren't as familiar with this case. This murder has been ubiquitous in the US since it happened in 2008 and the trial has been the last couple weeks. It's impossible to turn on any news channel or read a newspaper without hearing about it. It's been a very talked about case.... Casey Anthony is pretty much the most hated woman in the US right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Caylee_Anthony

I want to know why she's not guilty. Did they find some convincing evidence saying otherwise? Not enough incriminating evidence? From what I've seen on the news it seems to be the second one.

[EleanorElephante]

After looking this case up (I live in the UK so I don't know anything about it), I find it odd that she was only charged with lying to the authorities. Couldn't that possibly suggest that she did, in fact, have something to do with the crime?

[Whiteridur]

Hmm, ok. Well, I've not read a criminal case from the US before, but I imagine there will be some commentary regarding the verdict: I understand that no sentence has been passed yet, so presumably the case will be reported once that's happened. That, I imagine, will give some more insight into why the not guilty verdict was found. :)

ETA: EleanorElephante, not necessarily. Firstly, she was charged with both providing false information and murder (and, secondary to that, manslaughter and child abuse); but only the former was proven. Secondly, we know she had something to do with what happened - it was her daughter! But providing false information can be anything, from lying about where she was, not telling the police if there had been an argument or similar between the child and another family member, lying about how/where/when she found the child (if she did, or how she claims to have done so) - "I didn't do it" is not the only possible lie.

[Tempscire]

For such a serious crime, the jury would need to believe she had done it beyond a shadow of a doubt (edit: reasonable doubt, rather). They came up with a lot of circumstantial evidence, but that's not decisive enough. By the time they found the child's body, she was only a skeleton-- there is no way to prove that she had been chloroformed or drowned or suffocated because all the soft tissue that would show evidence of that was gone.

Maybe she was killed on accident and dumped in a panic. Maybe she was deliberately murdered. That's a very important distinction to make when bringing someone up on charges or sentencing them.

The entire situation is ridiculously suspicious and I think it's safe to say that Casey Anthony was not a good parent, but I also can't say I'm surprised by the verdict. For the evidence that is available, I cautiously say the jurors made the right choice.

[christx101]

This is OJ Simpson allover again its obvious she killed her daughter yet instill she gets too go home live her life like nothing never happen.This is disgusting and sick I'm shocked and quite angry.

[Robodl95]

ETA: EleanorElephante, not necessarily. Firstly, she was charged with both providing false information and murder (and, secondary to that, manslaughter and child abuse); but only the former was proven. Secondly, we know she had something to do with what happened - it was her daughter! But providing false information can be anything, from lying about where she was, not telling the police if there had been an argument or similar between the child and another family member, lying about how/where/when she found the child (if she did, or how she claims to have done so) - "I didn't do it" is not the only possible lie.

She lied quite a bit but none of them really prove that she killed Caylee.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anthony_trial/casey-anthony-top-ten-lies/story?id=13742643

[Shoosh Malooka]

The prosecution did a terrible job. Motive vague, cause of death and details not specific and conclusive enough, hoping that the jurors would find her guilty and stooping to sophism. "She is a terrible mother, therefore she killed her" is not acceptable proof in the system. Proof is when, where, and how it happened, a murder weapon with dna that ties killer to victim, solid motive and premeditation, abject confession and guilt, witnesses, etc. The jury must arrive at a conclusion based on evidence, and in this case the facts were not enough to allow the jurors to convict Casey. Blame the prosecution, not the jurors.

[Mistermook]

Don't feel bad Europeans, I'm in the US southeast and I've managed to maintain a blissful lack of awareness of this one too. From what I can tell it's not like the case itself is important, it's just one of those things that happens every day that the news decided to pick up and make a big deal about because the people involved play well on camera.

[kiwi_tea]

I agree strongly with Shoosh Malooka. There was reasonable doubt here, easily, because the prosecution brought forward a case full of implication and innuendo, but never proof. One should also spare a minute to say, though, that the media has worked very hard to make Casey Anthony out as guilty from almost day one. A whole media story has been built around this woman that, really, we don't know. We know details that make her seem like an awful parent, though.

What the media and prosecution tried to do is say: "Here is a dirty, irresponsible slut. Look at how much of an irresponsible slut she is! She's an Unsavoury Character whose car smells of decomposition. She must have killed her child to make way for partying."

[SeeMyu]

What's really just sticking to my mind though is all the lies she has said.. and then also to bring up that she was molested by her father is an excuse to panic and duct tape, throw her in a bag, and then dump her in the woods.
If someone where to die, especially a child.. you would call the police and tell them right when you found the body. Or would you panic, dump the body, and go and party.. then decide "Hey, maybe I should report that my daughter is dead now"
This case is just messed up.. :|

[Mistermook]

If lying made you a murderer, I'm fairly sure I'd have bagged my first kill before grade school.

[christx101]

What's really just sticking to my mind though is all the lies she has said.. and then also to bring up that she was molested by her father is an excuse to panic and duct tape, throw her in a bag, and then dump her in the woods.
If someone where to die, especially a child.. you would call the police and tell them right when you found the body. Or would you panic, dump the body, and go and party.. then decide "Hey, maybe I should report that my daughter is dead now"
This case is just messed up.. :|

IKR sickening I also find it disturbing that she was clubbing getting wasted after she knew her daughter was missing.I feel if you have nothing to hide why lie she lied about the babysitter her employment being molested by her brother and father.Her car smelled like a dead body.

just ain't adding up!

[kiwi_tea]

What "kind of person" she allegedly was isn't really the issue here. She might be a horrible person and still be innocent.

I agree things don't add up here. They don't add up to her innocence. They don't add up to her guilt.

And better a hundred guilty people go free than one innocent person rots in jail, right? Isn't that an important component of the justice system, that the jury system ought to protect the potentially innocent?

There was reasonable doubt. There was ample doubt.

[Whiteridur]

...clubbing getting wasted after she knew her daughter was missing.
Do you know why she was doing so (if you actually do know she was doing so, which is doubtful)? You've not heard of someone whose life is crashing down around them, while they sit knowing they can do nothing about it, self-medicating by drinking themselves into a stupor?

And if she did kill her child - she wouldn't have been worried sick, now, would she? She'd have known exactly what happened, so really, clubbing and drinking would be the least of her misdemeanours.

No-one said she had nothing to hide. Maybe the girl died through an accident which was her mother's fault. Maybe her mother wasn't watching her when she should have been, and someone else took her and killed her. Maybe the mother had nothing to do with her daughter's death, but was doing drugs, or stealing, or committing benefit fraud, or doing any one of hundreds of other things which she would not want the police to know about. A lie doesn't tell you what is the truth, it just makes your list of things which aren't the truth longer.

Lots of things smell like dead bodies. Forgotten lamb joints in a corner of a boot smell like dead bodies. And, well, if the car smelled of an actual dead body, then that means that there was still decomposing matter in there somewhere - why didn't forensics find it? You can't have a smell without a source, especially after two years - and while the source may be small and well-hidden, forensics are excellent at discovering small, well-hidden bits of evidence. If there was forensic evidence regarding this, then evidently there was something wrong with that evidence, otherwise no-one would be commenting on the much weaker evidence that is a smell.

The defence brought up possible childhood sexual abuse, not the woman herself, and it was deemed inadmissible, so it didn't impact the outcome significantly. In any case, any CSA wouldn't have affected the verdict - it may have caused the judge to reduce or modify the sentence on compassionate grounds, possibly to include mandatory psychiatric evaluation or attention, but it doesn't change whether the woman is judged guilty or not so. It's not relevant information for the jury, whose only job is to decide on the facts of the actual case.


I hope this indicates how easy it is to get caught up in assumptions and character judgements. Of course, it's entirely natural to get fired up over a case like this - the suspicious death of a child is a horrible thing, and I'd be worried if it didn't evoke an emotional response. But think of it this way: what if the mother is innocent, but everyone sees that she was a poor mother and acted irresponsibly and in bad faith, and assumes that she's guilty? She ends up in prison or on death row until she dies of old age, having had her life, family, friends, and freedom seized, and, what's worse, living with the knowledge that the whole world thinks she killed her own daughter when she didn't. She's not a likeable person, sure, and I'm sure many feel that she's not fit to be a mother - but that's not a reason to imprison or kill her.

And, then - even if you still think this case is clear-cut, where's the line? Where do you draw the line between "It's obvious that this person did it" - as is apparently the case here - and "We need evidence to back up the claim that this person did it" - as is the case in every other trial? How can anything be obvious without evidence which is, by definition, plain for everyone to see?
The media is not required to be fair or unbiased. It is not required to respect the law to the level that a court is, it is not required to consider all the evidence and judge it objectively, and it doesn't give a shit about whether someone is actually guilty or innocent - whatever sells the most papers. It is impossible to come to a reasoned, justified opinion on whether a person is innocent or guilty before reviewing all of the evidence in detail - and this is why I won't set much store by anyone saying Yay or Nay unless they have actually read the case report (which no-one has, as it's not finished yet).

[christx101]

Do you know why she was doing so (if you actually do know she was doing so, which is doubtful)? You've not heard of someone whose life is crashing down around them, while they sit knowing they can do nothing about it, self-medicating by drinking themselves into a stupor?

And if she did kill her child - she wouldn't have been worried sick, now, would she? She'd have known exactly what happened, so really, clubbing and drinking would be the least of her misdemeanours.

No-one said she had nothing to hide. Maybe the girl died through an accident which was her mother's fault. Maybe her mother wasn't watching her when she should have been, and someone else took her and killed her. Maybe the mother had nothing to do with her daughter's death, but was doing drugs, or stealing, or committing benefit fraud, or doing any one of hundreds of other things which she would not want the police to know about. A lie doesn't tell you what is the truth, it just makes your list of things which aren't the truth longer.

Lots of things smell like dead bodies. Forgotten lamb joints in a corner of a boot smell like dead bodies. And, well, if the car smelled of an actual dead body, then that means that there was still decomposing matter in there somewhere - why didn't forensics find it? You can't have a smell without a source, especially after two years - and while the source may be small and well-hidden, forensics are excellent at discovering small, well-hidden bits of evidence. If there was forensic evidence regarding this, then evidently there was something wrong with that evidence, otherwise no-one would be commenting on the much weaker evidence that is a smell.

The defence brought up possible childhood sexual abuse, not the woman herself, and it was deemed inadmissible, so it didn't impact the outcome significantly. In any case, any CSA wouldn't have affected the verdict - it may have caused the judge to reduce or modify the sentence on compassionate grounds, possibly to include mandatory psychiatric evaluation or attention, but it doesn't change whether the woman is judged guilty or not so. It's not relevant information for the jury, whose only job is to decide on the facts of the actual case.


I hope this indicates how easy it is to get caught up in assumptions and character judgements. Of course, it's entirely natural to get fired up over a case like this - the suspicious death of a child is a horrible thing, and I'd be worried if it didn't evoke an emotional response. But think of it this way: what if the mother is innocent, but everyone sees that she was a poor mother and acted irresponsibly and in bad faith, and assumes that she's guilty? She ends up in prison or on death row until she dies of old age, having had her life, family, friends, and freedom seized, and, what's worse, living with the knowledge that the whole world thinks she killed her own daughter when she didn't. She's not a likeable person, sure, and I'm sure many feel that she's not fit to be a mother - but that's not a reason to imprison or kill her.

And, then - even if you still think this case is clear-cut, where's the line? Where do you draw the line between "It's obvious that this person did it" - as is apparently the case here - and "We need evidence to back up the claim that this person did it" - as is the case in every other trial? How can anything be obvious without evidence which is, by definition, plain for everyone to see?
The media is not required to be fair or unbiased. It is not required to respect the law to the level that a court is, it is not required to consider all the evidence and judge it objectively, and it doesn't give a shit about whether someone is actually guilty or innocent - whatever sells the most papers. It is impossible to come to a reasoned, justified opinion on whether a person is innocent or guilty before reviewing all of the evidence in detail - and this is why I won't set much store by anyone saying Yay or Nay unless they have actually read the case report (which no-one has, as it's not finished yet).

I'm not changing my stance on this case been following it since day one she's a sociopath and I'm not the only one who thinks so.Your child goes missing and you don't report it for 31 days and somehow you are innocent of a crime? And meanwhile, you go out and party like a rockstar, with apparently absolutely no concern at all that your child is missing? Does that sound like the actions of a loving, caring mother? NO!!! That sounds like the actions of a psychopath or someone with something to hide!

Anyone of us who has kids or cares for some kids, you let one of those kids come up missing for even an hour, and we're like, "911, FIRE DEPARTMENT, ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE, NATIONAL GUARD, MARINES, EVERYBODY, EVERYWHERE, EVERYTHING!!! MY BABY'S MISSING!!!" We'd be turning over every rock in this country, looking for that kid, and if we found them with somebody--like if somebody kidnapped them, THAT'S what a real mom who loves her kids would do!

You bring up good points I'm just very mad at this verdict mad that she goes home like nothing happen while her child is dead.

[kiwi_tea]

I'm not changing my stance on this case been following it since day one she's a sociopath and I'm not the only one who thinks so.Your child goes missing and you don't report it for 31 days and somehow you are innocent of a crime? And meanwhile, you go out and party like a rockstar, with apparently absolutely no concern at all that your child is missing? Does that sound like the actions of a loving, caring mother? NO!!! That sounds like the actions of a psychopath or someone with something to hide!

Anyone of us who has kids or cares for some kids, you let one of those kids come up missing for even an hour, and we're like, "911, FIRE DEPARTMENT, ARMY, NAVY, AIR FORCE, NATIONAL GUARD, MARINES, EVERYBODY, EVERYWHERE, EVERYTHING!!! MY BABY'S MISSING!!!" We'd be turning over every rock in this country, looking for that kid, and if we found them with somebody--like if somebody kidnapped them, THAT'S what a real mom who loves her kids would do!

You bring up good points I'm just very mad at this verdict mad that she goes home like nothing happen while her child is dead.

Have you ever seen the final scene of Twelve Angry Men, where Lee J. Cobb's character melts down?

[christx101]

Have you ever seen the final scene of Twelve Angry Men, where J. Lee Cobb's character melts down?

Yes I've seen the movie

[kiwi_tea]

You don't think you're doing a similar thing here? All this innuendo and stuff about "psychopaths" and "bad mothers". We don't know anything much about this woman. Frankly: I think she did it too. But I have no way to be sure of that. You trust the media's portrayal of her? They only ran what was salacious.

I'm inclined to trust a jury's decision 1000000% more than trial by media. What is there to be mad about here? Justice was done insofar as we can do it.

Our presumption of innocence until proven guilty, I'm afraid to say, has to stick. Nobody proved her guilty, or even came close to doing so.

[christx101]

You don't think you're doing a similar thing here? All this innuendo and stuff about "psychopaths" and "bad mothers". We don't know anything much about this woman. Frankly: I think she did it too. But I have no way to be sure of that. You trust the media's portrayal of her? They only ran what was salacious.

I'm inclined to trust a jury's decision 1000000% more than trial by media. What is there to be mad about here? Justice was done insofar as we can do it.

Our presumption of innocence until proven guilty, I'm afraid to say, has to stick. Nobody proved her guilty, or even came close to doing so.

Any mother that waits 31 days to report a child her child missing is guilty of something IMHO.All the lies she told even laughing on the stand at her own trial .not just partying the following day, but getting a tattoo stating what a beautiful life she has after her baby has been drowned/stolen/gone missing!This is hard to comprehend, just like with OJ...a human is murdered and no one is held accountable. It is so sickening to know with everything in you that a person is guilty and then see then walk away smiling, free to do it again to another baby.

I have every right to be mad and upset justice was not served imo she didn't even get charged with child abuse.Now there popping champagne partying after a child's death I wonder if the defense team and jurors would allow Casey to babysit their kids and grand kids since she's so innocent.

12 angry men=12 ignorant jury

[Clashfan]

I"m on the side of being mad and disgusted because I think this woman killed her child. However the prosecution did do a really lousy job and all the evidence was completely circumstantial. Very hard to get a conviction on a capital murder charge with nothing but circumstantial evidence (well unless your black and in Texas then your likely to get the death penalty) and very shaky circumstantial evidence at that.

They tried to try her in the media and I think the prosecutors assumed that they could use the media's case and it would all go their way. Very poor judgement on their parts.

How she can't be held responsible for at least child negligence is beyond me. Wouldn't have taken much to prove she was negligent when it took her more than a month to even admit the kid was missing.

I will say this if she ends up getting any prison time for the lying to police convictions (each count carries a possible one year prison term) they will probably have to keep her out of the general population in prison or she won't last very long.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

And better a hundred guilty people go free than one innocent person rots in jail, right?

noooooooooo.i would MUCH rather that a hundred guilty people go to jail.


OT:
the woman is bad news. the media isnt helpful. the prosecution did a sloppy job. we probably wont know anything solid unless new CONCRETE evidence shows up, maybe, down the line. hope those fools dont fumble it again, though. casey reeks of guilt. the entire time i followed this thing red flags were popping up in my mind.

[girlgeek19]

I'm only surprised that she wasn't found guilty of child neglect. It seems like not reporting your child missing for over a month falls is neglect.

And she won't get significant jail time if any. She's already served what, three years? Those would count towards any sentencing.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

I'm only surprised that she wasn't found guilty of child neglect. It seems like not reporting your child missing for over a month falls is neglect.

you cant neglect a dead child. neglect charges only stand if the child is either alive or of unknown status. they found caylee, dead.

[wickedblue]

Whether or not it was the right outcome, she is not guilty in a court of law. It is not up to us or the media to decide her guilt. Opinions and emotional reactions to the outcome are perfectly fine to have but no matter how mad you are or how wrong you think the jury is, I don't think it's warranted to judge her from the media's portrayal of her. She may be a terrible person, she may even be a terrible mother, but neither of those things make a person a murderer. I think there's some sweeping moral judgments being made about this woman and that really sickens me. None of us, not a single one, know what her reasons were for any of the choices she made and none of us know how we would behave if we were in similar circumstances. You cannot convict someone of murder just because you don't like how they behaved.

Also, Not Guilty is not the same as Innocent. As mentioned several times in this thread alone, our justice system is one that must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty before they convict. If there is reasonable doubt, they cannot convict. It may seem unfair but it really is better to let a guilty one walk free than to put an innocent person behind bars.

Now as for the media's role in this, they as usual, completely disgust me. If she weren't white and pretty, this wouldn't have gotten near this attention and Casey Anthony would have been a blip on our radar. Crimes just as horrific happen all over the place, all the time, and are just forgotten by the media and the police. Now that's where the true injustice lies, in my opinion.

[Tempscire]

I have every right to be mad and upset justice was not served imo she didn't even get charged with child abuse.Now there popping champagne partying after a child's death I wonder if the defense team and jurors would allow Casey to babysit their kids and grand kids since she's so innocent.
You've every right to feel frustrated by the verdict. However, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." Probably none of the defense team or jurors would let her within 100 feet of their own kids, but her capabilities as a babysitter are not what was on trial. Her moral character was not on trial. Her abilities as a parent were not on trial. Her quality as a mother was not on trial. Whether she murdered her child and dumped the body WAS on trial, and there was not enough evidence to support convicting her on the charges brought against her.

That's how our justice system works. You HAVE to look at the evidence presented and decide based on that. Maybe you figure a case like this, it's so obvious she's guilty, even if conclusive evidence isn't there. What about the next case, and the case after that, the ones that don't get your moral dander up? Do we just shrug and figure we don't really need evidence to lock the accused away? I mean, we feel it in our gut that they must totally be guilty of something, amirite?

I hate slippery slope arguments, but trial decisions DO set legal precedent for future cases, and the last thing anyone should want is a precedent of lowering the burden of evidence to convict someone of a heinous crime.

noooooooooo.i would MUCH rather that a hundred guilty people go to jail.
And when you're the one innocent person wrongly sentenced to spend a life in prison (or be executed) for a crime you didn't commit?

[kiwi_tea]

Also, Not Guilty is not the same as Innocent.

In terms of our feelings that's true. But "not guilty" requires us to continue presuming - as we should until proven - that she is innocent. Not guilty really does, technically, mean she's "innocent".

It just doesn't mean she didn't do it.

Totally agree with your posts there though, wickedblue & Tempscire. Rough situation, huh?

[SuicidiaParasidia]

And when you're the one innocent person wrongly sentenced to spend a life in prison (or be executed) for a crime you didn't commit?

then i suck it up and remind myself that im not the only person who matters in the world and be thankful that my situation isnt common.

maybe youre asking the wrong person, though. i dont see life as being such a big deal. im okay with letting go of it whenever my time may be. i understand that life isnt always fair. sometimes shit happens to honestly upstanding people. but is that really a good enough reason to throw everything out the window? and how exactly would one cure the imperfections in an imperfect world run by imperfect people?
nobody LIKES that sometimes innocents are put there in the place of criminals, and its a nice idea that only those deserving should be put behind bars. im all for that. but its irrational to demand that everything be perfect when things are not in perfect order, and for ME its easier to forgive when mistakes happen. i dont expect anyone to agree with me on that, but. there you have it.

[Tempscire]

Not guilty really does, technically, mean she's "innocent".
Yeah, though it was my understanding-- though I know this probably varies-- that there is a technical difference. She's effectively innocent of the worst charges, but in some legal parlance "not guilty" just means "not enough evidence to convict," whereas "innocent" requires someone to be proven not to be involved in the crime. Same end result, but there can be a difference.

[wickedblue]

So you honestly believe it's better to put a person who has committed no crime behind bars for years, potentially the rest of hir life? They lose their family, their job, their home, everything that matters to go into a system that turns good people rotten just by its very nature. Do you know what it's like inside of a prison? To have no freedom to make any choices for yourself? Not to mention the violence. And the sense of hopelessness waking up every day in a system that doesn't give a damn about you? You don't just casually toss innocent people into that just to make sure we get the guilty ones. That's not how justice works. If it did, then any one of us could be its next victim.

Edit: Cross-posted. Reply meant for SuicidiaParasidia

[christx101]

You've every right to feel frustrated by the verdict. However, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." Probably none of the defense team or jurors would let her within 100 feet of their own kids, but her capabilities as a babysitter are not what was on trial. Her moral character was not on trial. Her abilities as a parent were not on trial. Her quality as a mother was not on trial. Whether she murdered her child and dumped the body WAS on trial, and there was not enough evidence to support convicting her on the charges brought against her.

That's how our justice system works. You HAVE to look at the evidence presented and decide based on that. Maybe you figure a case like this, it's so obvious she's guilty, even if conclusive evidence isn't there. What about the next case, and the case after that, the ones that don't get your moral dander up? Do we just shrug and figure we don't really need evidence to lock the accused away? I mean, we feel it in our gut that they must totally be guilty of something, amirite?

I hate slippery slope arguments, but trial decisions DO set legal precedent for future cases, and the last thing anyone should want is a precedent of lowering the burden of evidence to convict someone of a heinous crime.


And when you're the one innocent person wrongly sentenced to spend a life in prison (or be executed) for a crime you didn't commit?


Not guilty does mean Innocent Her moral character Her ability as a parent was on trial here she was charged with counts of child abuse.her moral character has been brought up because people wanted to know what she did during the whole month her daughter was missing.Getting tattoos calling her daughter a waste entering wet t shirt contest partying stealing money from her parents and grandfather.Now she's gonna get a book deal a lifetime movie payed for interviews.Maybe her and OJ Simpson can get wasted and get tattoos together saying beautiful lives.

Someone that waits 31days to report their own child missing or even tell her family heck yes I'm gonna judge them!

[SuicidiaParasidia]

So you honestly believe it's better to put a person who has committed no crime behind bars for years, potentially the rest of hir life? They lose their family, their job, their home, everything that matters to go into a system that turns good people rotten just by its very nature. Do you know what it's like inside of a prison? To have no freedom to make any choices for yourself? Not to mention the violence. And the sense of hopelessness waking up every day in a system that doesn't give a damn about you? You don't just casually toss innocent people into that just to make sure we get the guilty ones. That's not how justice works. If it did, then any one of us could be its next victim.

Edit: Cross-posted. Reply meant for SuicidiaParasidia

i think its better than letting 100 guilty people go free, yes. better than letting 1 person who took a candy bar from a store without paying be charged? no.
ive already been in a situation like that before, so id appreciate if you didnt question my personal experience in such matters.
in short: yes, i do know what its like to lose family, job, my home, my clothes, no freedom of choice, contact with the outside world, entertainment, while being forcibly confined to a place and being surrounded by violence. it sucked. (understatement of the year, cough) i get that. but i also understand that it wasnt the end of the world, and if i couldve also been in the position to take 100 horrible people off the street with me, i wouldve gladly taken it.
and we wake up in a system that doesnt give a damn about us every day, in america. if you think the government gives a damn about you, you are sorely mistaken.

i didnt say casually. i said instead of letting 100 guilty people go free. is it REALLY so hard to believe that someone might have a different opinion about such things? and youd really rather live out in a world with a ton of horrible people around to victimize your friends, your family, your pets, your children, your neighbors, impeding on your freedoms at will, rather than take one for the team to contain them? wow. just, wow.

and unless im missing that theres some obviously 100% full-proof way of getting the bad guy without fail each and every time, i dont think its anything less than realistic to expect some degree of failure. but to somehow suggest that its "better" that 100 serious-crime guilty people go free rather than let 1 innocent be wrongly imprisoned is just ridiculous. do you people really still wonder why the system is in the shitter, and why criminals run society? possibly because youre too afraid of "maybes" to put them away.

[Tempscire]

Someone that waits 31days to report their own child missing or even tell her family heck yes I'm gonna judge them!
You're welcome to judge. However, should you end up on a jury to judge that someone officially, you're supposed to set aside those personal judgments. Now, chances are nobody here was on that jury and even so, in this informal discussion, we're not bound by the same protocol.

However:

The jury would have convicted her if the prosecution had been able to put forward a solid case with clear evidence. Instead, they couldn't even determine the cause of death. Even if it looks very bad that she partied for a month instead of reporting her kid missing, that's not clear evidence that the child was actually being abused or neglected.

You can judge the fuck out of her for being a bad person and a worse mother, but you cannot convict her of it, especially when there's insufficient evidence. You're letting your emotions overrule the facts, such as they are, and that's fine on a personal level, but the jury did the right thing.

If anyone's at fault for her getting off, it's the prosecution for not developing a clear case against her in 3 years and potentially relying on the jury to judge her as you have, by emotion rather than fact. (And honestly her defense attorney didn't seem any more competent, so...)

There needs to be a clear distinction between emotional compulsion and legal justice, lest we resort to crazed mobs who lynch everyone we don't like at the moment. Keep in mind that, unless you were on that jury, the only exposure you have to Casey Anthony's life has been filtered through the media circus, and of course they're fair and level-headed and would never, ever spin anything for the maximum viewership-upping frenzy.

[christx101]

You're welcome to judge. However, should you end up on a jury to judge that someone officially, you're supposed to set aside those personal judgments. Now, chances are nobody here was on that jury and even so, in this informal discussion, we're not bound by the same protocol.

However:

The jury would have convicted her if the prosecution had been able to put forward a solid case with clear evidence. Instead, they couldn't even determine the cause of death. Even if it looks very bad that she partied for a month instead of reporting her kid missing, that's not clear evidence that the child was actually being abused or neglected.

You can judge the fuck out of her for being a bad person and a worse mother, but you cannot convict her of it, especially when there's insufficient evidence. You're letting your emotions overrule the facts, such as they are, and that's fine on a personal level, but the jury did the right thing.

If anyone's at fault for her getting off, it's the prosecution for not developing a clear case against her in 3 years and potentially relying on the jury to judge her as you have, by emotion rather than fact. (And honestly her defense attorney didn't seem any more competent, so...)

There needs to be a clear distinction between emotional compulsion and legal justice, lest we resort to crazed mobs who lynch everyone we don't like at the moment. Keep in mind that, unless you were on that jury, the only exposure you have to Casey Anthony's life has been filtered through the media circus, and of course they're fair and level-headed and would never, ever spin anything for the maximum viewership-upping frenzy.

I don't care about being political correct here I'm standing by my opinion and statement its nothing else to talk about you THINK A AND I THINK B!

[Tempscire]

I don't care about being political correct here I'm standing by my opinion and statement its nothing else to talk about you THINK A AND I THINK B!
*shrug* Just trying to add some perspective about why the jury chose as they did.

[PuddleJumper]

I have to disagree with the juries decision. Any mother who doesn't report their child missing for 31 days, and goes partying throughout that entire time has something wrong with them. As was already stated, she went out and got a "Good Life" tattoo while her daughter was missing aswell! Whether she is guilty of murder, or guilty of being mentally ill, that woman needs to be dealt with.

[Tempscire]

I have to disagree with the juries decision. Any mother who doesn't report their child missing for 31 days, and goes partying throughout that entire time has something wrong with them. As was already stated, she went out and got a "Good Life" tattoo while her daughter was missing aswell! Whether she is guilty of murder, or guilty of being mentally ill, that woman needs to be dealt with.
And how do you propose we deal with her?

Also, I'd be hesitant to jump from "doesn't adore her child" to "must be mentally ill." You can't jail (or otherwise confine) people for not loving their kids enough. Not even when it makes them look guilty as hell in a murder trial.

[Mistermook]

Wow. Some of you guys need to riot and burn down a few buildings. Naked aggression and anger, that's obviously what the justice system needs. Hell, we could just burn a few witches and things would just be peachy.

[PuddleJumper]

They could deal with her by getting her some mental help if that is what is indeed wrong with her. I'm not saying she needs to be served the death penalty, but she does need help.

Oh, and as for the whole "not adoring her child" thing. I don't care if she hates her child. If she is missing she should have reported it instead of partying. If I was the only one who knew that someone I "didn't like" was missing, I would immediately tell the police atleast so I wouldn't be found out later and become a suspect.

[christx101]

They could deal with her by getting her some mental help if that is what is indeed wrong with her. I'm not saying she needs to be served the death penalty, but she does need help.

Exactly this woman has already stated she plans on having more kids another child is not what she needs help mental health services.

[EleanorElephante]

Well, I would say that she should look to counsoling, as should anyone who has gone under this sort of distress and tragedy.
It is to my understanding that she was in jail for three years prior to this verdict. That in itself is traumatic enough...

[MasterJ16]

Well... Those jurys were just damn stupid.... I guess their the ones who need to go to jail for acting to ignorant!!! That's just a shame what choice/s that they made.. a real shame...(sigh)

[Tempscire]

Oh, and as for the whole "not adoring her child" thing. I don't care if she hates her child. If she is missing she should have reported it instead of partying. If I was the only one who knew that someone I "didn't like" was missing, I would immediately tell the police atleast so I wouldn't be found out later and become a suspect.
Yeah, that was just plain irrational behavior, regardless of anything else (the not reporting it, I mean; I could even overlook the partying in this regard, but to wait so long...does not compute).

Exactly this woman has already stated she plans on having more kids
wat. :|

[Nekowolf]

Alright. So the biggest thing was lack of any solid evidence, right? That was the big reasoning she was acquitted; not that that she's innocent but that the prosecution did such a piss-poor job, that it would not have been right to judge on what was presented. And apparently, some of you think that that was wrong of them, to varying degrees.

Well let me tell of you of something. It was called the Red Scare. Innocent people accused or even convicted of being Communists, right here in the States, on nothing but hearsay. Do you really want to revert back to that? Was everything about the case and her bizarre? Perhaps, yes, at least I think so. But that alone is not grounds to lock someone away. We were not on that jury, nor at that trial, so any opinions we have may well be misguided.

[kiwi_tea]

It's not just the prosecution, it's also the investigating officers. It sounds like they went to trial without doing a thorough investigation. Or worse still, they did a thorough investigation, didn't find a lot of evidence linking Anthony to the crime, but pressed charges anyway.

[christx101]

wat. :|

Exactly this woman has already stated she plans on having more kids


Yes she plans on having more kids and unfortunately its not a damn thing anyone can do to stop her.

[Mistermook]

You could try more hand wringing and thoughtful passages about how you would have had her drawn and quartered maybe?

You know, there's an awful lot of people I probably don't approve of them breeding on considered grounds, whether it's because of something they've done and something they're bound to do, and without the possession of a crystal ball in my pocket (I know, you've all been suspecting but it's not true) I've been wrong more times than right even though I've been recommended by my peers and professional friends as someone Not Too Shabby in the intellect department. After that sort of beating in the prognosticating department, I truly have come to the conclusion that even complete assholes sometimes have nice kids, don't kill all of them, and sometimes, in rare instances, people change. More importantly, even though I consider myself fairly smart, I am sometimes even when in possession of what I believe to be much of the relevant information, either because my information is wrong or my conclusions might be.

Maybe she did this heinous thing, maybe she didn't. She's apparently free to live her life though, and no amount of past behavior [i]demands future behavior. Human beings are complicated. I don't understand them and neither do any of you.

[DittanyPark]

I believe strongly that she killed the child. If I were on the jury, I would say 'not guilty". There wasn't evidence of what manner the death ocurred.

To vote 'guilty' would mean possible death sentence which would mean a juror would need to feel 100% certain of guilt.

I watched part of the trial through the live-feed. I don't believe anyone really knows who fathered the child. A rather strange family.

Casey is an extremely good habitual liar, extremely convincing. This is a symptom of a sociopath. Not saying she is, just that this is a symptom.

The defense tried to implicate the man who found the child's body.

One point of evidence was found on Casey's computer of searching for forms of murder. This evidence was knocked out by Casey's mom stating that she and not Casey did the internet search. With so much lying in the family, impossible to get to truth when evidence is so weak.

Maybe she is free and found "not guilty", but is she really when her life has been so exposed and society has condemned her with guilt?

[christx101]

Maybe she did this heinous thing, maybe she didn't. She's apparently free to live her life though, and no amount of past behavior demands future behavior. Human beings are complicated. I don't understand them and neither do any of you.

Maybe maybe not only time will tell human beings also have a thing called behavioral patterns ever heard that saying once a thief always a thief or once a cheater always a cheater.I'm not saying this is gonna be the fate of casey anthony just looking in to all possibilities with her previous behavior.Its only human nature for people to be nervous at the thought of her bringing more kids into the world.

[DittanyPark]

Human beings are complicated. I don't understand them and neither do any of you.

Actually, humans are not complicated and are able to be understood. I refer to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, which is widely taught and accepted to understand humans and their motivational behavior.

[Mistermook]

Actually, humans are not complicated and are able to be understood. I refer to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, which is widely taught and accepted to understand humans and their motivational behavior.
Maslow? Tell us O'Great Seer of Humanity:

What sayeth Maslow upon autism? How upon Maslow's obvious and undoubtable insight how hast thou not cured the cancers of the body or poverty? What does Maslow suggest about the recession? Hast thou, knowing Maslow, not implemented his wise teachings? Verily, if Maslow's chart, which is so subtle and based upon perfection that you truly knowest all upon which we worms call "humanity," why hast thou not presented the predictive and preventative model upon which builds Maslow, ties together all social science, and removes the needful advancement of sciences beyond Maslow?

Obviously she's not guilty because of Maslow, because Maslow explains everything. Why are you getting upset even. Maslow obviously knew all about this trial back in the 40s and 50s. Why didn't I see that? It's all so simple. Maslow Maslow Maslow!

Golly, I never thought someone would try to trip me up with Maslow. I guess I wasn't paying enough attention to Maslow to know to expect you to Maslow me, huh?

[jamiegrrl]

Casey Anthony sim? Anyone have a Casey Anthony sim for download?

[DittanyPark]

Maslow? Tell us O'Great Seer of Humanity:

What sayeth Maslow upon autism? How upon Maslow's obvious and undoubtable insight how hast thou not cured the cancers of the body or poverty? What does Maslow suggest about the recession? Hast thou, knowing Maslow, not implemented his wise teachings? Verily, if Maslow's chart, which is so subtle and based upon perfection that you truly knowest all upon which we worms call "humanity," why hast thou not presented the predictive and preventative model upon which builds Maslow, ties together all social science, and removes the needful advancement of sciences beyond Maslow?

Obviously she's not guilty because of Maslow, because Maslow explains everything. Why are you getting upset even. Maslow obviously knew all about this trial back in the 40s and 50s. Why didn't I see that? It's all so simple. Maslow Maslow Maslow!

Golly, I never thought someone would try to trip me up with Maslow. I guess I wasn't paying enough attention to Maslow to know to expect you to Maslow me, huh?

You stated that you weren't able to understand humans. I was trying to help you as you declared yourself incapable. It seems that now you believe yourself an expert of all things. Good for you, one should believe in themselves.

I am not the one getting upset as you claim. Just where is it that you have read or determined that I was upset about the trial? Ah, but I forget, you are an expert of all things. :lol: If you took the time to read before jumping to false conclusions and making false accusations, but why should I condemn when your motivations are obvious and again, you are an expert of all things. :)

[kiwi_tea]

Mistermook's point is that Maslow's hierarchy is not a total explanation of human motivation. It's overly simplistic. It's even controversial at times. And you've announced it as if such an unsophisticated tool allows us to globally and easily "understand" human behaviour.

[DittanyPark]

Mistermook's point is that Maslow's hierarchy is not a total explanation of human motivation. It's overly simplistic. It's even controversial at times. And you've announced it as if such an unsophisticated tool allows us to globally and easily "understand" human behaviour.

I understand quite welll that Maslow's Hierarchy is simplistic to a degree. That there are some who have raised a controversy regarding it. Even given that, it is still taught at colleges and educationallly accepted as part of curriculums. Still, it is a very good basis for someone to understand human behavior/motivation as it captures basic needs.

Mistermook's stated he didn't understand humans. I tried to help him out. I feel I received a verbose diatribe in response which was fully uncalled for.

I appreciate your desire to explain Mistermook's post to me, although I had well understood it. I also appreciate legitimate opposing views, at the same time reckless attacks of a fanciful nature that wrongly attribute to me words and statements that were not said and then used to simply hurl insults is not appreciated.

[SeeMyu]

Casey Anthony sim? Anyone have a Casey Anthony sim for download?

:wtf: .... :lol:

[Whiteridur]

But, DittanyPark, Mistermook's point wasn't that he doesn't understand human behaviour - it's that, with our current knowledge and sciences, it is impossible to fully understand every aspect of human behaviour. Of course, there are various works and theories, including Maslow's, which we still study because they are a helpful starting point: that's great, but without full understanding, we can't necessarily accurately predict the future behaviour of an individual.

[simneesee]

Thankfully I live in a country where you need solid conclusive evidence to convict someone. Unfortunately people would still try to convict her and send her to prison because they think they know what happened without any evidence...

[Mistermook]

Who needs evidence when you've got Maslow? Amiright or amiright?

[socherish]

Do you know why she was doing so (if you actually do know she was doing so, which is doubtful)? You've not heard of someone whose life is crashing down around them, while they sit knowing they can do nothing about it, self-medicating by drinking themselves into a stupor?

She got a tattoo that said "The good life" in latin during this time, too. I don't think that's someone upset enough to drink themselves into a stupor. She also repeatedly asked, "Why is everyone so obsessed about Kaley? What about me?". There wasn't enough evidence to convict but I'm 98.9% positive she did it.

[Bailey Weggins]

Why do people blame the prosecution for not having more evidence? They worked with what they were given.
I wouldn't be sad if Anthony spent the rest of her life in jail and I sure wouldn't mind if she underwent a little procedure to make sure she can't have any more children. But of course you can't ask for that in a society that treats criminals better than victims.

[Mistermook]

Spent a lot of time in the Big House have you, Bailey? I mean, since you've got this expert opinion on how awesome incarceration is? Let me guess - long massages, interesting hot showers, and nothing to do but engage in your favorite activities of sharpening tooth brushes and working out?

[Whiteridur]

A society that treats criminals better than victims? It's an irrelevant point, really, as there isn't enough evidence to class Anthony as a criminal. So, it's actually a society which treats accused people better than criminals - which is exactly as it should be (although in practise, there's not too much evidence of that in the US system anyway).

[pinketamine]

Why do people blame the prosecution for not having more evidence? They worked with what they were given.
I wouldn't be sad if Anthony spent the rest of her life in jail and I sure wouldn't mind if she underwent a little procedure to make sure she can't have any more children. But of course you can't ask for that in a society that treats criminals better than victims.

Excuse me, but are you suggesting to impose that woman a medical treatment that would never allow her to have kids? If so, let me tell you that I personally find that totally inhumane.

I'm not familiar with the case, but I think that if the judges thought there wasn't enough proof, there's not much to say. It is nice to live in a country when you have to be proven guilty instead of needing to prove your innocence, in my opinion.

[Clashfan]

For those of you not in the US or not familiar with this case let me just say that the media have been utterly ruthless and totally relentless towards this woman. It didn't just start with the trial coverage it started back in 2008 by a woman called Nancy Grace. For any who don't know who she is she is a lawyer, not a journalist, that has a show on CNN. Supposedly it focuses on unsolved and cold case files mostly about missing children in reality she gets to run her very loud mouth and spout off her opinions as facts.

My roommate at the time was addicted to the show and watched it daily so I got a lot of exposure to it. What Nancy Grace does is reprehensible in terms of justice. She had this girl tried and convicted prior to any evidence coming forth. They would regularly have "experts" on the show and they would speculate on the case. The really bad part is the speculation was presented more as assumption and then fact. When I say that they beat this case to death I'm probably not going far enough along the lines of just how bad their coverage was.

Several things occurred from this the first being that they got ratings, big ratings. When the actual trial started the other networks jumped on the bandwagon and used some of the information from Grace's program which was nothing but speculation to begin with in their coverage. So what the viewing public heard and saw was not the real physical evidence they presented at trial, they didn't have much real evidence to present.

Having been exposed to way to much of the vitriolic press coverage back when the case started I avoided most of the trial proceedings. My knee jerk reaction to the verdict was disbelief and disgust because I do think that Casey Anthony was involved in Kaylee's death. However after having actually looked at what the jurors were presented with I can see why they could not convict. Just because you "think" or "feel" someone my be guilty that is still not conclusive proof. That is how innocent people are sent to jail and even death row by allowing one's prejudices and feelings to govern your decision as opposed to only considering the evidence presented at trial.

With how this woman was presented in the media, which is what the people familiar with the case are basing their opinions on, it is very easy to see why they are angry, disgusted and ready to form a lynch mob complete with pitch forks and flaming torches to go after her. It's so much harder to take a step back and look at the physical evidence and accept that they simply did not have what it took to convict her.

Probably why the rational sounding people posting on this thread are either not in the US or were completely unfamiliar with the case they have not been tainted by the media coverage. If it's any comfort to those in the lynch mob this woman is not going to have an easy life. She has pretty much burned her bridges as far as her family is concerned, she has no money, no place to live and a piling mound of lawsuits pending against her.

Do I think she will try to sell her story? Most assuredly, what's worse is that someone will buy it. I don't think she will end up living the good life off of the royalties however. She might get enough to cover the lawyers fees but I don't think she will be able to pay off any settlements going against her. The woman she claimed was the babysitter that abducted Kaylee to begin with has a very good suit against her and I could see her being awarded millions over it. Very similar to what happened in the OJ situation with the civil suit going against him in the wrongful deaths of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.

I'm not advocating for Casey Anthony nor am I agreeing with any of her actions during this whole fiasco. I am advocating that our Justice system while certainly flawed was upheld in this trial and the jurors acted responsibly in rendering their verdict. The burden of proof was correctly put on the prosecution as it is supposed to be and they did not prove it.

[Nekowolf]

I did not realize that Nancy Grace started it. That explains a lot. Fuck that bitch.

[Bailey Weggins]

Spent a lot of time in the Big House have you, Bailey? I mean, since you've got this expert opinion on how awesome incarceration is? Let me guess - long massages, interesting hot showers, and nothing to do but engage in your favorite activities of sharpening tooth brushes and working out?
Your sarcasm is out of place. Our society does treat many criminals better than victims, e.g. when people serve a ridiculous sentence for rape and their victims have to fear for their life again once the lunatics get out of jail.

Excuse me, but are you suggesting to impose that woman a medical treatment that would never allow her to have kids? If so, let me tell you that I personally find that totally inhumane.
I'd find it inhuman if Anthony had more children. In certain environments and with people like Anthony as a parent, it is not likely that a child will develop into a mentally healthy human being.

[Mistermook]

Your sarcasm is out of place. Our society does treat many criminals better than victims, e.g. when people serve a ridiculous sentence for rape and their victims have to fear for their life again once the lunatics get out of jail.
Obviously I missed the new laws we must have made where we put victims in prison, and the reforms we must have made where prisons were transformed into pleasant places.

And by the way, that's slick the way you tried to move the goal posts there buster. Changing "society" into "rape victims" must make a better argument, but it isn't what you said in the first place. I suppose rapists in prison might have it easier than rape victims, in the same sense that murderers might have it easier in prison than murder victims, but the vast majority of people in prison aren't murderers or rapists. You can't simply declare that a three month stay in prison for a felony drug possession without intent to distribute, for instance, is better than the same person sitting outside of a prison smoking a doobie without getting arrested. And that's what you actually said - that society treats (all) criminals better than (all) victims.

You want to narrow it down to rapists and murderers? Fine. Do so. Don't expect anything less than well deserved mockery when you make lazy generalizations though.

[Shoosh Malooka]

I did not realize that Nancy Grace started it. That explains a lot.

Yes, she was all over Casey Anthony before jury selection, calling her 'tot mom.' But let's not forget that Jane Velez Mitchell and Dr. Drew have been beating their drums tirelessly in her wake. And they're still at it. Nancy Grace tends to shift all of her fury from one person to another, often losing interest in the previous victim. When Casey became 'hot' she laid off Joren van der Sloot like he was invisible. That was who she had locked her death gaze on to after a weak conclusion with Misty Croslin. Misty's case was more interesting to me. Misty was arrested, her brother was arrested, then her parents were arrested, and Haleigh Cummings' death was never resolved iirc.

[christx101]

Casey Anthony,her defense team, and the jurors have all received death threats Casey Anthony will be a free woman this Sunday,

I'm watching Jane Velez show now Nancy grace coming on next LOL!

[perihelion]

All I can say is that the US legal system is messed up. MESSED UP I TELL YOU. Children have virtually no rights in America.

[Tempscire]

Children have virtually no rights in America.
They also have virtually no responsibilities to society. That's how things go.

Of course, I assume you're really referring to protections rather than actual rights, in which case I disagree. There's lots of protections for kids. They're not always able to carry those protections out effectively, but they do exist.

[Whiteridur]

Well, that's kinda true, since the US has refused to sign most human rights treaties due to their unfortunate habit of outlawing such happy things as capital punishment and torture. However - unfortunately - criminal prosecutions, especially those relating to crimes against the person rather than crimes against property, aren't about protecting rights, because by the time it's criminal, the victim has already been deprived of their rights; no prosecution can reverse that.

[christx101]

If it had been a man he would have been found guilty regardless of the lack of evidence being a woman let alone a pretty white woman has its perks in the legal system.

Now the jurors are asking for their identity protected if they feel so sure of their verdict they wouldn't feel the need too hide.

[Mistermook]

Now the jurors are asking for their identity protected if they feel so sure of their verdict they wouldn't feel the need too hide.
Yeah, that's probably what those suckers who didn't order black folk lynched like the town wanted felt like back in the day. Screw 'em, right? Justice should be done the old fashioned way - mob violence, mob rules! Why the fuck do we even need a jury of our peers when Nancy Grace can get on the tv and tell you all who's guilty? You all can show those jurists what's for - maybe even drown their kids, huh? That'll show 'em!

[christx101]

Yeah, that's probably what those suckers who didn't order black folk lynched like the town wanted felt like back in the day. Screw 'em, right? Justice should be done the old fashioned way - mob violence, mob rules! Why the fuck do we even need a jury of our peers when Nancy Grace can get on the tv and tell you all who's guilty? You all can show those jurists what's for - maybe even drown their kids, huh? That'll show 'em!

Where did I ever say the jurors deserve vigilante justice I simply said they shouldn't feel like they gotta hide.In life you make choices you gotta deal/live with only criminals hide.The jurors have stated they thought she was guilty just didn't have enough evidence to convict her.I feel bad for the jurors getting threats its wrong,but at the end of the day its a dead child a possible baby killer found not guilty people just aren't thinking that clear.

[Mistermook]

Did you or did you not suggest implicitly that jurists wouldn't feel the need for protection from the people who disagreed with their verdict if they'd only carried out the sentence you approve of?

There's absolutely no "Well, if you hadn't done this thing that pissed people off..." thing going on to rationalize death threats and assault. That's the same thing as "Well, if he didn't want to have been lynched, he shouldn't have slept with that white woman," or even "she should have known she'd get raped, going out dressed like that into that club." Mob justice and implicitly excusing criminal acts because of who it's happening to?

Of course I don't know why I should be talking with a criminal. I mean, unless that's your real name it's obvious you're hiding something. What are you ashamed of? Maybe you diddle kids? Like to cut up young girls? Hiding shit like that though, with everyone knowing you use a pseudonym like a rapist or arsonist, you've got to know that eventually someone is going to call you on your shit and mail death threats to you. And I guess that's fine, because you knew what you were doing when you started hiding things and that was that you deserve to go to jail, or else someone has a right to just do something about you once and for all. I mean, you're dangerous, right? A criminal?

[Ledgo]

Prosecutors totally goof'd this. Not going into details, but my only opinion is that throwing every appliable charge with dry bones and honestly some below-decent evidence by book standards was a bad idea. She can pretty much admit to it now, seeing as I don't see what they can throw at her now. Even the jurors said that the evidence was insufficent for the charges placed.

I don't lose any faith in the American justice system at all. Justice was served by the evidence and case provided, and it was poor in general. From a street wise point of view, I wouldn't agree with the jury that she is innocent. But from the fact that every citizen deserves a fair trial, and the fact that this wouldn't be a fair trial if she was convicted on this evidence, I say it did what it needed to. If she had been put in jail, we would have probably seen her out in a few years after someone looked at the case and pointed out the lack of evidence/proof with money in her hands for comp.

[christx101]

Did you or did you not suggest implicitly that jurists wouldn't feel the need for protection from the people who disagreed with their verdict if they'd only carried out the sentence you approve of?

its just common sense if the verdict had been guilty the jurors would be considered heroes most people following the case wanted Casey Anthony locked up.

There's absolutely no "Well, if you hadn't done this thing that pissed people off..." thing going on to rationalize death threats and assault. That's the same thing as "Well, if he didn't want to have been lynched, he shouldn't have slept with that white woman," or even "she should have known she'd get raped, going out dressed like that into that club." Mob justice and implicitly excusing criminal acts because of who it's happening to?

Its just part of living in a imperfect world I never said it was right just the society we live in some people feel justified making death threats and vigilante justice.

[kiwi_tea]

its just common sense if the verdict had been guilty the jurors would be considered heroes most people following the case wanted Casey Anthony locked up.

So breaking the law, and failing to do your job well, and putting a potentially innocent person to prison, makes you a hero?

[christx101]

So breaking the law, and failing to do your job well, and putting a potentially innocent person to prison, makes you a hero?

Its pretty obvious if she was convicted the jurors wouldn't be fearing for their lives/safety right now.

[pinketamine]

Well, maybe that is true, but they wouldn't have done their job properly.

[Whiteridur]

Well, that's not the priority, is it? Jurors are, temporarily, public servants. We pick random jurors and ensure that jurors are as unbiased as possible because, in the context of the trial, the jurors don't matter: they are simply there to apply the law. Yes, they were under pressure to find Anthony guilty, and yes, they've received threats. In the 1980s and 1990s, the same type of pressure and death treats to jurors helped notorious mobster, John Gotti, get off numerous charges for hijacking, fraud, perverting the course of justice, loansharking, murder, manslaughter, and a few others. I doubt you'd say that it was better in that situation that the jurors caved to pressure, than it would have been if they had stood up and done their jobs correctly?

It comes down to this. Modern states operate based on the rule of law. You are quite entitled to criticise that system: but remember that in a system wherein everyone does his own thing based on his own interests, as you're saying the jury should have done, there wouldn't have been a trial in the first place, much less a prosecution.

[christx101]

Well, maybe that is true, but they wouldn't have done their job properly.

Yeah its so nice too see a Casey Anthony get a fair trial unfornatley the same can't be said for black men and other minorities on death row with little or lack of evidence.

The color of a defendant and victim's skin plays a crucial and unacceptable role in deciding who receives the death penalty in America. People of color have accounted for a disproportionate 43 % of total executions since 1976 and 55 % of those currently awaiting execution. A moratorium of the death penalty is necessary to address the blatant prejudice in our application of the death penalty.http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/race-and-death-penalty

[Whiteridur]

Yes, you're absolutely right. That unfairness is a reason to push for more fairness everywhere though - not a reason to abandon what fairness *does* exist. :)

[christx101]

Yes, you're absolutely right. That unfairness is a reason to push for more fairness everywhere though - not a reason to abandon what fairness *does* exist. :)

So true even though I have a strong dislike for Casey Anthony!!

[pinketamine]

Yeah its so nice too see a Casey Anthony get a fair trial unfornatley the same can't be said for black men and other minorities on death row with little or lack of evidence.

Yes, I agree with you on this.

[kennyinbmore]

Yeah its so nice too see a Casey Anthony get a fair trial unfornatley the same can't be said for black men and other minorities on death row with little or lack of evidence.

I have no sympathy for anyone eho takes another's life regardless of color. I think it's unfair that all convicted murderers aren't put to death

Where did I ever say the jurors deserve vigilante justice I simply said they shouldn't feel like they gotta hide.

There are some crazy people out there

[Elyasis]

Last time I checked the death penalty results in death.

[Whiteridur]

I'm... not sure what that's relevant to, but in any case it's not entirely accurate. In the US at least, the death sentence leads to on average 14 years (sauce (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cp09st.pdf)) of imprisonment, followed by death.

[lionessgirl]

I have no sympathy for anyone who takes another's life regardless of color.

They were talking about people getting unfair trials due to racists

I think it's unfair that all convicted murderers aren't put to death

So anyone who kills someone due to:

Having a metal illness
The 'victim' doing something far worse to other people
The mentaly healthy victim wanting to die (due to terminal and very painful diasease, or let's say they're crushed by rocks and they can't be rescued but it would take a few days for them to die)

Also is death really the worst punishment? A fair few murderers do either have, or end up with large amounts of guilt over what they've done and despite what anyone/The Daily Mail says, you do not want to be in prison.

Back to Cathy, while it is werid she didn't report her child missing, it is not proof. And I would suggest therapy of some sort, because if nothing else a lot of people think she's a muderer and that could end up "Everyone thinks I did it, I might as well kill someone else" or something.