Skip to comments.The Casey Anthony Verdict is Not an Endorsement of Our Criminal Justice System
Posted on 07/08/2011 11:27:44 AM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
When the Casey Anthony verdict was announced I expected celebration from her defense team. I was more taken aback by the celebratory tone taken by pundits like Geraldo Rivera and Judge Andrew Napolitano. Their position is the same one that many liberals, anti-death penalty activists and libertarians are promoting now: this proves the system works.
But it doesnt.
The American justice system is the greatest legal system in the world but like any other it is fallible. In the interest of liberty we err on the side of caution in criminal cases, but that means that in many cases we do not get justice. Talking heads on Fox were making the point that this was justice, that the verdict is a victory for the Constitution. This is wrong. Criminals getting off is a byproduct of a our love of liberty but it certainly isnt an endorsement of our system.
Casey Anthony may or may not have killed her child but we know she committed several crimes afterward. She didnt report her daughter missing for weeks. When police were finally involved she attempted to frame an innocent woman for murder. While her daughter was supposedly missing she was out partying. If not reporting your daughter missing for a month isnt child abuse or at least child neglect nothing is.
Little Caylee Anthony was abused, possibly raped according to her own mother who claimed George Anthony was a child molester. She disappeared and her mother did nothing. She died a horrible death and her family hired lawyers. Her body was desecrated, thrown into a ditch like so much garbage and her mother will likely walk free at sentencing. How is this an endorsement of American justice?
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
Hard to argue against the truth.
All this "due process" gets in the way of justice!
Our system is set up with a bar high enough that very few innocents are convicted, but that means some guilty go free.
Excellent article. No one wins, we all just see how far society has collapsed.
Why not mob rule? Yep, that’s the ticket!
>>I think it would be better to return to the days when we tied rocks to people and threw them in the river. If they drowned, they were innocent. If they lived, they were guilty and put to death.
All this “due process” gets in the way of justice! <<
Obviously you didn’t even read the article, or you wouldn’t make such a comment, which shows that you missed the point entirely.
But, at least your jerking knee seems to be in fine working order.
Try reading the article, then respond.
How much will the Anthony family make from book(s)/movie(s) based on this tragedy? They should be banned from making a nickel on it. However our sick society will clamour for reading about it or seeing it in 3D.
“this proves the system works.But it doesnt.”
it did work, in this case if few others...
The parade of people who give a kneejerk reaction to the headline without even reading the article has already started. No doubt others will join the parade soon.
The “system” does not work when our citizens lack any common sense whatsoever.
it did work, in this case if few others...<<
Would you care to elaborate?
I'm sure you're just being sarcastic and frustrated when you state this.
She is a white O.J.. She will also make the headlines again. All this has done is EMBOLDEN her. She will truly believe she is invincible. Her life is ruined and she doesn't know it yet. She still believes that she can have her old life back again. No way! That's over. Trust me, Casey will NOT lead a happy life. Her carefree whorey lifestyle is done. Now ONLY the scum of our society and fellow [psychopaths will associate with her. Casey will have an unhappy ending. There truly is a God and He will punish her.
Too bad the jury didn’t understand their assignment. They took no notes, did not review evidence.
One juror said the state had to prove motive and it didn’t so they couldn’t find her guilty. Also they couldn’t figure out what the sentence should be, so they couldn’t convict (hint: that’s the judges job).
An alternate juror state “We” knew early on they couldn’t find her guilty. Excuse me? They were admonished by the judge to not speak to each other about the case.
The system failed. One juror said it’s not for her to judge, that’s God’s job or something to that effect. How pathetic. She should have been excused from the jury.
Nice of you to tell God what he should do.
>>One juror said the state had to prove motive and it didnt so they couldnt find her guilty. Also they couldnt figure out what the sentence should be, so they couldnt convict (hint: thats the judges job).<<
Jennifer Ford said she couldn’t convict without facts, then in the same interview said authoritatively that that the Dad had something to do with it.
She also said the chloroform evidence confused her. So to be on the safe side, neither she nor the rest of the jury asked any questions about it, they just dismissed it.
Not one question did they have.
And the jury was split on guilt or innocence, then, without asking a single question, hurried to their “not guilty” verdicts.
The alternate juror said Casey was a “good mother.”
Yet there are idiots on this forum saying that “the system worked.” If anyone thinks the “system worked” because the “a jury made a decision”...ladies and gentlemen, I give you....O.J. Simpson!
The jury in this trial was another example of people not understanding the difference of proving guilt “Beyond a reasonable doubt” and “Beyond the shadow of a doubt”.
Of course not. It's more of an indictment of it.
...Casey Anthony got off because she worked the system...
What does that mean? She wasn't supposed to have a defense attorney? That's the system. She got off because the State failed to provide enough evidence to convict her.
...The courts cant always dispense justice, it is up to society to protect our children....
Like this perhaps?
I know a lot of people closely followed that case and I admit I did not. I can tell you my impression is the woman is guilty, but I don’t know if I could have voted for a conviction on a guilt beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
Some things you must always be unable to bear. Some things you must never stop refusing to bear. Injustice and outrage and dishonor and shame. No matter how young you are or how old you have got. Not for kudos and not for cash. Your picture in the paper nor money in the bank, neither. Just refuse to bear them.
IMHO, this verdict proves the system DOESN’T work. A 2 year old child was murdered. Nobody gives a ****! Just as with the Simpson fiasco, this is the end of it. Justice wasn’t served. The murderers go unpunished.
I read the article and the entire article was based upon the premise that Caylee Anthony was murdered. That charge is only an assumption which has not been proved. To lynch Casey Anthony based upon an assumption is mob rule. The reason we have a Constitution is to prevent idiots from engaging in witch hunts, hangings from the tree branch and street justice. Throwing someone in the river for a float test of innocence is from the Dark Ages.
What truth? The author actually believes Casey Anthony’s pathological lies? Where’s the evidence that George Anthony raped his granddaughter? That wasn’t even put forth by the Defense (which was forced to drop the whole sex abuse thing, anyway, due to a complete lack of evidence). Something the brain-dead jurors forgot about.
“...The courts cant always dispense justice, it is up to society to protect our children....
Like this perhaps?”<<<<
Ah, the good old lynch-mob reference.
No, if you had the ability to comprehend what was written, you would have completed the thought as the author expressed it, and not added your own hateful comments and incendiary rhetoric:
“The courts cant always dispense justice, it is up to society to protect our children. We need to bring back public shaming, we need to bring back the idea of moral responsibility separate from legal responsibility.”
You are a jackass.
I’m going to take a wild guess that you really didn’t follow this case until this trial was all over the news. Am I right?
This article is all over the board.First, its about the dysfunctional family and how THAT is injustice. Then the fact that the defendent hired attorneys and THAT is injustice, then the fact that the mother didn’t notify authorities and THAT is unjust.
Then the writer wraps up all these myriad points and says our legal system is not just. Then says the criminal justice system works when someone is not found guilty if the jury finds not guilty, but then titles the article “not an endorsement of our criminal justice system”.
Life is often unjust. Yes, it is not just that children have to suffer at their parents/family’s dysfunction. Yes, it is tragic when a young child dies needlessly.
But NONE of that has anything to do with our legal system. Our legal system is not about obtaining Justice for tragic victims...sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. Our legal system is about the state punishing someone who is found guilty of a crime.
Now, there is work to get a law saying it is a crime NOT to report a missing child. That is good. But it hasn’t been a law yet.
This kind of article does not help understand our legal system, or help us to move forward to better protect children.
>>....engaging in witch hunts, hangings from the tree branch and street justice. Throwing someone in the river for a float test of innocence is from the Dark Ages<<
Nice hyperventilating while throwing out strawmen there, genius. Did you soil yourself?
Do you agree or disagree with the following?
“The American justice system is the greatest legal system in the world but like any other it is fallible. In the interest of liberty we err on the side of caution in criminal cases, but that means that in many cases we do not get justice. Talking heads on Fox were making the point that this was justice, that the verdict is a victory for the Constitution. This is wrong. Criminals getting off is a byproduct of a our love of liberty but it certainly isnt an endorsement of our system.”
When the LA police officers were aquitted of brutality in the Rodney King case, many—including myself—were satisfied, despite the tape showing them beating him.
We said, truly, that the tape seen on TV had been edited to make the police look worse and King look better. The part that showed batons falling was actually looped by the lamestream misleadia to make it look like it went on much longer than it did.
We said, truly, that the jury saw the *whole* tape, and heard evidence we did not hear.
As we all remember, this verdict resulted in a race riot, during which Korean store owners protected their businesses with firearms, and atrocities were committed by the rioters.
Mark Levin and other experienced lawyers have said that the state simply failed to prove its case against Casey Anthony. They didn’t say that moronic jurors returned the wrong verdict, as in the OJ Simpson case; they said that the state*failed*to*prove*its*case.
If it’s so bleedin’ obvious that she killed the poor child, how is it that they failed to prove their case?
If I understand correctly, she was not on trial for being a horrible mother, for failing to report her child missing, or any of the other stuff that has led many to reason, “A mother that lousy *must* be guilty.”
She was on trial for murder, and for lying to officials (charges I never trust). The jury, who heard *all* the evidence, decided that the state had not proved its case on the murder charge, but they went along with the lying charges.
The system did work. The state is required to prove its case. Period. They didn’t. Period.
Casey Anthony may or may not have killed her child but we know she committed several crimes afterward.
That 's the whole problem with this case. she may or may not have, neither one is proveable.
Maybe the prosecutors should have charged the beyotch with crime they could prove, like trying to frame the nanny.
Blame the government prosecutors, not the system.
Her death was a result of HOMIDICE. Which means: she was murdered.
No, that is not what the article stated, go back and re-read it.
Also don’t forget when the court justice system does not hand out justice over and over again then witch hunts, hangings and street justice will take over.
Casey had her day in court and it is over. I don’t agree with the verdict and listening to the two jurors who spoke I don’t agree with their thought process at all.
Seems to me in an ideal world you’d have a process that attempts to determine the truth, and appropriate punishment doled out. Our system isn’t set up that way, the prosecution takes it’s best shot at what it thinks can be proven, and they person is found not guilty, they go free without fear of being charged again. No system is perfect but that’s the biggest flaw in the one we have, IMHO.
Please read the article. It seems people are jumping in and commenting while COMPLETELY MISSING the author’s point.
“Casey Anthony may or may not have killed her child but we know she committed several crimes afterward. She didnt report her daughter missing for weeks. When police were finally involved she attempted to frame an innocent woman for murder. While her daughter was supposedly missing she was out partying. If not reporting your daughter missing for a month isnt child abuse or at least child neglect nothing is.
But a quirk in the law makes it so that that the same child abuse that can get your children taken away by CPS cant put you in jail when that child turns up put in a garbage bag and thrown into a swamp. The best legal system in the world cannot bring justice to Caylee Anthonys killer. This is the price we pay for liberty but it is hardly an endorsement of our system.”
And there’s even more.
Maybe the prosecutors should have charged the beyotch with crime they could prove, like trying to frame the nanny.
Blame the government prosecutors, not the system.
They did charge her and convicted her of lying to police specifically the fake nanny. She received 4 years and will be out in two weeks. Justice has been served.
I haven’t read the article yet. I will comment first then go read it and make another comment.
These facts are on the record.
1. The mom says the child died accidentally
a. She admits no other person was involved
2. The mother lied to the police, so they would search for the child
3. There was duct tape over the child’s mouth.
a. why was it necessary, if the child died accidentally
4. About three weeks after the child went missing, mom got a tattoo
a. this ‘mourning’ mother got a tattoo saying, “The Good Life”
5. She was known to have been going out partying soon after her daughter went missing
6. She executed internet searches that sought information on chloroform and breaking necks
a. why look up this stuff at all, but particularly just prior to your child ‘having an accident’
7. The mother’s father, a detective with ten year’s experience noticed the unmistakable smell of a dead body in the mother’s car trunk
a. at least one other person with experience in such matters, also picked up on the unmistakable smell
8. How do you explain all this away, without murder being the core vehicle?
a. keeping in mind mom says it was an accident on her watch, who else is to blame
b. I know mom said a baby sitter was the last to see the child
c. that was dis-proven
d. mom fell back on the accident story
e. that’s the ultimate explanation.
9. How can you rule for innocence? Well, you can’t.
10. It’s my take that there is clear evidence of massive jury misconduct here.
a. not doing due diligence
b. discussing the issue early on against instructions not to
c. ignoring the only logical conclusion to be made
d. using flawed logic to come to preposterous conclusions
I. method of death not ascertained (can’t convict)
II. no motive (can’t convict)
11. How could anyone else have done it?
12. Does it matter what method was used?
13. Isn’t wanting desperately to be free, then celebrating freedom, and heralding ‘the good life’ a completed circle? Yes.
14. There are grounds (IMO) to prosecute the jurors.
15. If they were prosecuted and found to have been guilty of jury misconduct, a mistrial could be declared.
16. If a mistrial were declared, the mother could be charged and prosecuted again.
a. someone with more knowledge than I may see this as ‘not an option’, but I’d like to get the concept on the record
I recognized exactly what was going to happen when I posted this.
People would read the headline, IGNORE the article, and come in “loaded for bear” with the same arguments they’ve had for days, thinking they were still arguing over whether “the state had proven its case.”
And NEVER HAVING A CLUE about what the article said.
I have to admit, I have been guilty of that myself from time to time. Shame on me.
When the coroner cannot identify the type of the homicide as in this case, there is no case.
The prosecutor screwed this up, they are to blame for this travesty of justice.
The system did work. The state is required to prove its case. Period. They didnt. Period.
The state had to prove its case to dummies, a daunting task but I guess they were a member of your peers.
The author SPECIFICALLY said this: "Casey Anthony may or may not have killed her child but we know she committed several crimes afterward."
Are you drunk? Or do you just have an extremely short attention span?
I agree with your post btw, I was just commenting on the one part.
I understand that, but isn't it a crime against the nanny to attempt to frame her or does she only have civil remedies?
Did the State charge her with any of those other things? If not, it’d be hard for the jury to find her guilty.
Whether Casey did or didn't cannot be PROVED.
The prosecutors should have charged her with crimes that they could prove.
Just like when they couldn't prove Al Capone was a racketeer, but they could prove tax evasion.