Various acquaintances of mine have been expressing their outrage to me. What do you think?
–It was as bad as the last episode of the Sopranos: I want my money back.
–A travesty—we were short-changed on jury deliberation/speculation/psycho-profiling days.
–At least the judge could’ve lectured her a little and made her cry more.
–What happened to good old-fashioned evil laughter after the verdict? She just wasn’t believable.
–They’d better have a good opener when next season starts, or I am going back to Investigation Discovery.
It was just. The jury did not find her innocent, they found her not guilty because the prosecution had not presented a good enough case to find her guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. While this might not be pleasing or comforting, it was just since it follows what the justice system prescribes as the outcome in such a situation.
I bow to your pedantic superiority as I made an off-the-cuff post to a thread in between bites of my lunch. I shall endeavour to not let it happen again.
A jury of her peers (including 7 women) found Casey not guilty.
I respect the jury’s decision.
Casey was declared indigent. Her lawyers worked pro bono. There was a limited budget from Florida to pay witnesses travel expense, get forensic tests done etc.
Casey didn’t buy her way out of trouble like OJ’s multiple million dollar defense.
It was just. The state had nothing and overreached badly. That may not be emotionally satisfying to those who have worked themselves into a lynch-mob frenzy, but it IS the truth as far as we could determine it.
Not apropos of this case - because frankly I don’t want to hash out the details - but I don’t understand this mindset.
I acknowledge the jury’s decision, I abide by the jury’s decision, and I am strongly - fervently, even - in favor of a society that abides by the jury’s decision.
However (again without reference to this particular case), I reject the notion that a jury’s decision is, by definition, correct or just just because it was their decision. This makes no sense. If a jury rules that guilt has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt, this means that the accused goes free. Fine. It does not mean the jury necessarily made the right call, nor that their decision should be above critique.
In this particular case, I do not respect the jury’s decision. I do not agree that there is reasonable doubt - unreasonable doubt, sure, but not reasonable - and I think the jury was wrong. I ALSO think (obviously) that, having been the beneficiary of this wrong choice by an easily distracted jury, Casey Anthony should go free as a bird. But this case is not proof that “the system works” - it’s proof that the system is worth preserving even when it produces the wrong outcome. These are two different things.
It produced exactly the right outcome. The government could not prove she committed premeditated murder. So she is not guilty. If they had gone for a lesser charge, she might have been found guilty.
What’s tough for me to accept is that her lying actually benefited her defense. If they had found the body sooner, perhaps there would have been DNA evidence linking Casey to the deceased.
saying “it’s just” or “it’s not just” doesn’t have any meaning. No one has any basis for determining whether the verdict comports with objective reality, so all we have is the verdict–there’s nothing to compare it to. But it’s nice that these acquaintances of yours so readily show you why it’s good they are only acquaintances.
I think the jury made the wrong decision (specifically, I think they misunderstood or misapplied the “reasonable doubt” standard).
I acknowledge that reasonable people can disagree about this; what I object to is the enshrinement of a jury verdict as, de facto, correct and above criticism.
There is no way to determine whether CA had anything to do with the death of her child. It’s not like we are trying to determine the temperature of a glass of water and can just stick a thermometer in it. To determine objectively whether CA killed her child (and, if so, whether it was first-degree murder or not) we would have had to somehow ride alongside in CA’s head during the period iin question, which is not currently possible.
Therefore, all you are doing is comparing your opinion of what happened to the verdict. But, our society has determined that we will believe the jury–we didn’t decide that you personally get to decide someone’s guilt or innocence. So, you are free to have your own opinion on the matter, but it amounts only to the proverbial hill of beans. Also, some of us are perfectly wiling to simply accept our society’s method for determining the truth and we don’t form our own opinions on the matter at all.