Funny you should mention that.
I'm defending the jury doing it's sword duty to return a verdict of "not guilty" if the prosecution fails to prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt".
I do not think the prosecution proved its case to that standard, and thus the jurors did what they had sworn to do.
What part of that, exactly, if any, do you have a problem with?
Keep in mind that what I personally may harbor as an opinion of Ms Anthony or what I believe her actions and responsibilities to be in the instance of the child's death have nothing to do with the verdict the jury delivered.
I know our whole family would be out scouring the hills and towns looking for one of our own who went missing, or from whom no one had heard for 24 hours, but that is how we are.
People believe all sorts of stuff, but the standard is one of proof, "beyond a reasonable doubt". In the instance the Prosecution did not prove that Ms Anthony killed her child with malice and forethought (a tough standard with credible witnesses and tight physical evidence) such that no alternative scenario exists, the jury found correctly.
The founders embraced a system of justice which might occcasionally let a guilty party off (believing they would eventually have to deal with God) rather than hang the innocent. To lower that standard is to tamper with judicial standards which, when properly applied, make our justice system uniquely just.
Unfortunately, sometimes those standards are not properly applied, but that is another topic.
Insofar as hiring the former perp as a babysitter, no.
But there are a lot of people I would not hire as a babysitter, and as far as I know, none of them have been found guilty of murder, either.
Since the perp (former) is innocent then why not hire her as a babysitter. I would, as a believer of the perfect system that you so enthusiastically describe, in a cliche after cliche, as if we haven’t heard them before a thousand times. The Founders, oh, yes, they’d be hi-fiving today. A perfect application of their principles. If we had only applied them at Nuremberg or to Charles Manson. Better let O.J. Simpson free and committing other crimes, than to convict him on the chance that the gloves did fit at the time of the crime! Yawn!