Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Casey Anthony Trial Verdict

Rate this topic


CapitalistSwine
 Share

Recommended Posts

Figure this is going to be posted eventually anyways:

Casey Anthony Trial official verdict was live on the news at 2:15 Eastern time today. Here are the results: Count 1: First degree murder- Not Guilty ||Count 2: Aggravated Child Abuse-Not Guilty ||Count 3: Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child-Not Guilty ||Count 4/5/6/7: Providing false information to law enforcement officer: Guilty

Also, this is important:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q016.htm

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My attitude towards this case has always been one of "who cares?" I haven't paid the least bit of attention, for the same reason that I didn't care about Laci Peterson or Elizabeth Smart. Kidnappings, murders, etc. happen all the time. This is not national news, except to the extent that Nancy Grace and her ilk need an excuse to feign righteous indignation for the sake of ratings. Their opinions are, of course, echoed by the vast majority of Americans who assume, a priori, that anyone on trial is guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My attitude towards this case has always been one of "who cares?" I haven't paid the least bit of attention, for the same reason that I didn't care about Laci Peterson or Elizabeth Smart. Kidnappings, murders, etc. happen all the time. This is not national news, except to the extent that Nancy Grace and her ilk need an excuse to feign righteous indignation for the sake of ratings. Their opinions are, of course, echoed by the vast majority of Americans who assume, a priori, that anyone on trial is guilty.

I think the difference was the cute pictures of the dead girl. They were able to tug at the heartstrings and keep people interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the difference was the cute pictures of the dead girl. They were able to tug at the heartstrings and keep people interested.

But that's hardly unique to this particular case. I think any decent judge would make these things closed to the public, bar media from the courtroom, and sequester the jury, the moment it becomes apparent that the case is going to be tried by CNN. Maybe Anthony is as guilty as everyone seems to think, but the problem is the public's automatic assumption of guilt, with judge/jury/executioner Nancy Grace leading the charge. That woman is a disgrace to journalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's hardly unique to this particular case.

It had good plot elements too. Plus it took quite a while for the story to unfold. I just think the cuteness was the clincher.

Nancy Grace leading the charge. That woman is a disgrace to journalism.

She's crying all the way to the bank. I don't think she created her market niche, she just services and milks it very well. At least Jerry Springer doesn't act holier than thou.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's always despicable how Americans that rant about the freedom, the constitution, justice don't give a damn about it in the practice against an individual they don't like because of the picture the media's given them. This country's got a bad case of blood lust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Nancy Grace seems to have a blood lust (haven't seen her report on this case, because I cannot stand her guilty-as-charged "reporting". However, I don't see the public reaction as implying the public had an "automatic assumption of guilt" or that the general reaction indicates "blood lust" or a disrespect for justice. I haven't followed the case closely enough to have a personal opinion on the outcome, but the colleagues I speak to think justice was not served. Every adult understands that juries sometimes make bad decisions, and sometimes make very bad decisions. So, evaluating a jury's decision as being very bad does not imply that these folk thought she was guilty regardless of evidence. In a month, the case will likely be forgotten. In a few years, Casey Anthony might do a movie, or get a talk show, or pose for Playboy... and people will simply shake their heads and tune in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people who watched this had their mind made up beforehand: she definitely killed her kid or had something to do with it. They didn't really know much about the evidence but were willing to go on the authority of the State prosecution and lunatics like Nancy Grace. Now housewives are calling for vigilante justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah..my facebook was blowing up like crazy with how our justice system is an utter failure, how a murderer got away, and so on. I even had a few on there that were suggesting that someone should "pop" (i.e.) shoot her while she is walking down the street...but those were random adds so I quickly defriended those nuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I felt that was great a moment for our nation. Rationality and reason prevailed over sentimental arguments. A decision was reached based on fact and not emotion. Whether she did it or not is besides the point. Did she do things to make one think that she may have done it, yes. But there was no real evidence that she committed the actual murder. The evidence offered was that she acted in a way to make one suspect that she may be guilty, an argument appealing to emotion. Furthermore, despite the media and dramatics, rationality and reason won out. The fact that this verdict was rendered in spite of the irrational hype is monumental. Again, I am not saying she did not commit the murder, only that our judicial system worked, much to my amazement.

Watching T.V. this evening and seeing commentators on all networks appealing to emotion and crying foul was appalling. Even if a guilty woman went free, I would rather see a guilty individual go free than an innocent individual incarcerated.

In short, I embrace this as a sign of hope that rationality can prevail.

Edited by Nigel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Nancy Grace seems to have a blood lust (haven't seen her report on this case, because I cannot stand her guilty-as-charged "reporting". However, I don't see the public reaction as implying the public had an "automatic assumption of guilt" or that the general reaction indicates "blood lust" or a disrespect for justice. I haven't followed the case closely enough to have a personal opinion on the outcome, but the colleagues I speak to think justice was not served. Every adult understands that juries sometimes make bad decisions, and sometimes make very bad decisions. So, evaluating a jury's decision as being very bad does not imply that these folk thought she was guilty regardless of evidence. In a month, the case will likely be forgotten. In a few years, Casey Anthony might do a movie, or get a talk show, or pose for Playboy... and people will simply shake their heads and tune in.

She may very well be guilty, but my point is that people seem to have thought she was throughout this whole ordeal...before a reasonable juror would have concluded so, and before the trial even began. This happens every time a court case draws national attention. Take the Duke rape case. Everyone, led by the media, was calling for their heads until it became undeniable that the girl was lying. If my fiancee were murdered tomorrow and I was charged on the basis of circumstantial evidence, is there any doubt as to who the majority of people watching Nancy Grace would think was guilty? Even before they became the slightest bit familiar with the evidence?

One other thing people tend to forget: in a properly working justice system, the guilty often walk free. "Probably guilty" is thankfully not the standard for conviction. Even if Anthony was probably guilty, the jury apparently did not believe it had been established "beyond reasonable doubt."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If my fiancee were murdered tomorrow and I was charged on the basis of circumstantial evidence, is there any doubt as to who the majority of people watching Nancy Grace would think was guilty? Even before they became the slightest bit familiar with the evidence?
Nancy Grace's audience: yes. I don't think that audience is representative of the average juror qua juror.

One other thing people tend to forget: in a properly working justice system, the guilty often walk free.
People realize that there is often not enough evidence to convict the guilty. When the reaction is strong, it is usually because the public is convinced that there is clearly enough evidence to convict, and the person is still found not-guilty. The Rodney King riots are a good example. If there is enough evidence, people might still walk free because one of the many human beings in the process (lawyers, jury, judge) may screw up. In a properly working justice system, this should definitely not be "often"; and, each such case should be a motivation to examine if the process requires a change.

"Probably guilty" is thankfully not the standard for conviction. Even if Anthony was probably guilty, the jury apparently did not believe it had been established "beyond reasonable doubt."
The jury obviously thought that there was reasonable doubt, and without much knowledge of the case, I would defer to them in much the same way as I would defer to a referee in a game if I was not watching. However, it is also true that juries sometimes consider "unreasonable" doubt, and I think our judicial system needs to fashion a razor to limit this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Jennifer, my Facebook page erupted as well. In my case, it was the first significant mention of any of this. I guess I dont troll the CNN/MSNBC/Fox News circuit enough, but I generally consider that a good thing.

Is there any where that I can see an objective listing of all the critical points of evidence? Wikipedia looks pretty solid on it, but I dont trust it looking at it so soon after the verdict. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I think happened is this; we know that she was searching "chloroform" quite a bit on google. We know that she likes to party. I think that she was giving Caylee small amounts of chloroform so she would zonk out, then she would go out and party with her friends- then one time she went over the line and killed her with an OD of chloroform. Her dad being a cop, it's possible she told him in a fright, and using his police skills disposed of the body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I think happened is this; we know that she was searching "chloroform" quite a bit on google. We know that she likes to party. I think that she was giving Caylee small amounts of chloroform so she would zonk out, then she would go out and party with her friends- then one time she went over the line and killed her with an OD of chloroform. Her dad being a cop, it's possible she told him in a fright, and using his police skills disposed of the body.

Speculation is problematic. Although your theory makes sense, the only conclusion that can be drawn is one based on the objective evidence. Don't be Nancy Grace. Like I said before, the fact that she was found innocent despite the emotional is a feat worth embracing. Reason won out and we should leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she murdered her child. I agree with that 100%. I am stating that what I, myself, thinks likely happened. Of course it's circumstantial. I am merely making a likely scenario based on avail. evidence and testimony. The justice system did succeed and worked as it should have, however did justice objectively rule the day? She is complicit in her childs death, how is yet to be determined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the press is out for blood on Anthony, they argued against the death penalty for Humberto Leal in the same week. This is nuts. This guy was here illegally for starters. No article seems to mention that fact. Anyways, they argue that even though he snuck in here illegally and gave police a fake U.S. drivers license when arrested, he should be afforded rights granted under a non-binding international law. This guy admittedly committed a heinous crime, raping and killing a girl. But he is defended in the media and Anthony is demonized, all in the same week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is defending Leal, but the concept of international law. I, for one, don't think that "international law" can really be said to exist in the first place, because "law" implies that attempts are made at enforcing it--which is almost never the case when breaches of so-called international law take place.

However...there are still niceties that sovereign nations agree to abide by, even though they understand that not much will happen if they break them. For instance, it might ruffle some feathers if a Botswanan policeman jumped the fence of the American embassy to arrest a thief, but such an action would ultimately be of little consequence to either the US or Botswana. Why, then, don't policemen do stuff like that? Because it is a generally understood (and almost always respected) rule that civilized nations don't fuck with each other's embassies.

The same applies to consular access for detained foreign nationals. Texas could have allowed the Mexican consul to see Leal, listened to his pleas for clemency and extradition, then denied the pleas and carried out his sentence. That would have achieved the same end result, without violating the trust with which sovereign nations agree to relate to each other. Texas' decision to execute the man without granting consular access was, indeed, a violation of the generally agreed-upon rules of conduct between sovereign nations, and reflects poorly on the United States. Does it really matter? Not in the long-run. We're not gonna go to war with Mexico over it, and this will be forgotten in a month. But it was still the wrong thing to do, and I think the Supreme Court came down on the wrong side here.

Edited by The Wrath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...