Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Casey Anthony Trial Verdict

Rate this topic


CapitalistSwine
 Share

Recommended Posts

Her dad being a cop, it's possible she told him in a fright, and using his police skills disposed of the body.

Nit picky perhaps (and somewhat in jest), but there aren't really any "police skills" for disposing of bodies. Policemen are exposed to a number of ways bodies have been disposed of, but any "training" they would get on how to do it would be what they think up in their own heads.

On a more serious note, and not necessarily with respect to this particular case, myself and many other police officers think that some of the public's perception of "beyond a reasonable doubt" has evolved into "beyond any possible doubt".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... ...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.

On a more serious note, and not necessarily with respect to this particular case, myself and many other police officers think that some of the public's perception of "beyond a reasonable doubt" has evolved into "beyond any possible doubt".
Yes, Philosophy's assault of the concept of "possibility" comes home to roost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regards to beyond a reasonable doubt versus beyond a possible doubt: is beyond a possible doubt not reasonable? The possibility of putting an innocent man in jail should be reasonably avoided, should it not? To take away a man's freedom, is it not reasonable to alleviate all possible doubt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are virtually no criminal cases that are completely beyond doubt. If all else fails, someone can always claim an elaborate conspiracy by an evil corporation to frame the defendant. If "beyond any possible doubt" is the standard, convictions would be few and far between. The risk of incarcerating the occasional innocent man, due to some freak circumstances that make him look extremely guilty, is the price of living in a society of law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing quite like admitting arbitrary assertions as 'evidence' in a court of law.

It would be easy if one only has to consider "possible" instead of "reasonable". Don't forget who has the burden of proof in a criminal trial.

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. [...] 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.

THANK YOU!

I can't believe the people whining about what an injustice this is. It is not at all. This verdict IS justice.

I also want to add that I so fear for her safety.I wonder how that's going to be handled with her next Sunday? I wonder how she's even going to be able to start a life now? Reminds me of this quote:

"I don't know how free she's going to be (but) she's going to be out a cage," defense attorney Cheney Mason told InSession soon after sentencing. "I doubt there's any place in this country that she could walk the streets freely."

I have only been following this case for a few days. The only emotion/subjectivity that plays into my judgment of her, would be how fucking attractive she is to me, but my gosh, maybe I should edit that out, maybe the lynch mob might come after me for openly expressing it! They are going to try to make her life hell I think. They seem like they are going to try to bring hell on earth to her, they hate her so much. I wouldn't be surprised if some really do want to kill her, that'd be considered "justice" to them if they did kill her. I think the "flaw in the justice system" that some are speaking of, would be what they are trying to put forward in the Caylee Law bill, but I still haven't read all that much about that part of this yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This verdict IS justice.

I agree with you in the sense that she was afforded the proper avenue of the justice system and that the rules of the justice system were followed. So legally speaking, she was treated justly. Morally speaking, my personal "jury" is still out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This verdict IS justice.

I agree with RationalBiker's assessment of this sentence: legally speaking justice was done. Morally speaking, just because she was found not guilty doesn't mean she didn't kill her daughter; if she did, then she didn't receive justice. Morally speaking the just way to treat her is to stay as far away from her as possible. Clearly she is much more likely than not (which, I know, is not the standard for criminal conviction) to have killed her own daughter. Her daughter was missing for over a month without a word from her except lies when confronted by the police.

I also want to add that I so fear for her safety.

I fear for the next man to get involved with her though perhaps I shouldn't since he would have to be a complete ignoramus without any rational judgement whatsoever. But certainly I would fear for any children she might have.

I wonder how she's even going to be able to start a life now?

She will probably end up like OJ: a social pariah in jail on some other offense.

"I don't know how free she's going to be (but) she's going to be out a cage," defense attorney Cheney Mason told InSession soon after sentencing. "I doubt there's any place in this country that she could walk the streets freely."

This is an equivocation on the concept "freedom". It is the same mentality that says that you are not free because you have to work or you are not free if you have to buy water or you are not free if you are poor.

The only emotion/subjectivity that plays into my judgment of her, would be how fucking attractive she is to me, but my gosh, maybe I should edit that out, maybe the lynch mob might come after me for openly expressing it!

How about your objective judgement of her? I mean, my gosh, how attractive can she possibly be to you, she probably killed her daughter? Leaving aside the lynch mob, don't you think your mother would be rationally justified in worrying about you if you brought Casey Anthony home for dinner or even if you just expressed your attraction to her?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, some people want to change the rules that protect juror's identities so that jurors are "more accountable". Likely, no change will actually be made. However, it does illustrate the short-term way in which some people think: willing to violate a principle that makes sense in thousands of cases, in order to deal with the one (in their view) exception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an equivocation on the concept "freedom". It is the same mentality that says that you are not free because you have to work or you are not free if you have to buy water or you are not free if you are poor.

I don't think it is; despite the fact that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is completely innocent, she isn't free to walk about anywhere she likes. I hate to use her as an example because she's a hero and I think Casey Anthony is responsible for the death of her own child, but it does illustrate the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with RationalBiker's assessment of this sentence: legally speaking justice was done. Morally speaking, just because she was found not guilty doesn't mean she didn't kill her daughter;

Right. But I refuse to treat her like she did.

Morally speaking the just way to treat her is to stay as far away from her as possible.

Morally speaking, the way to treat her is to leave her alone to live her own life. Whatever happened, happened.

Clearly she is much more likely than not (which, I know, is not the standard for criminal conviction) to have killed her own daughter. Her daughter was missing for over a month without a word from her except lies when confronted by the police.

On Sunday she will have served her time for what she was found guilty of, but in the courtroom of peoples minds, like many of the protesters, they want more than just that sentencing. The way I see it, lies, "bad behavior" still does not say to me she's more likely than not to have intentionally killed her daughter.

This is an equivocation on the concept "freedom". It is the same mentality that says that you are not free because you have to work or you are not free if you have to buy water or you are not free if you are poor.

I don't read it the way that you read it.

I just think she's very attractive looking, face, shape, hair styles, clothing, and... well, I don't want to dwell on this aspect of it and get the focus back on the verdict. When I look at her, I don't see "BABY KILLER!" I don't see "she PROBABLY killed her daughter", I see a girl that served her time, and whatever happened, happened, and leave her be without her having to be out in a cage, in the sense of protecting herself from haters emotionalism and in the sense of being alienated in the way she is by certain speculations and such. Don't make her become a victim of such things.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I look at her, I don't see "BABY KILLER!" I don't see "she PROBABLY killed her daughter", I see a girl that served her time, and whatever happened, happened, and leave her be without her having to be out in a cage, ... ...
According to her, her daughter died in the pool, and she -- poor victim mother -- put duct tape on her daughter's mouth, put her in a garbage bag, and disposed of the body. So, she probably belongs in a lunatic asylum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to her, her daughter died in the pool, and she -- poor victim mother -- put duct tape on her daughter's mouth, put her in a garbage bag, and disposed of the body. So, she probably belongs in a lunatic asylum.

I'm not going to try to fill in gaps, or try to piece or account for any evidence that has been presented so far, all I know is that there simply wasn't enough to convict her in this case.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever happened, happened.

Well you can't argue with that. The history and character of a person are unimportant if whatever they did is in the past. We should just forget about and not try to figure out what really happened, or make our own judgements of the facts and her behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should just forget about and not try to figure out what really happened, or make our own judgements of the facts and her behavior.

Any facts, evidence, behavior, etc. can certianly be judged, but what happened, what's missing, what connects, links, fills in the gaps, what really accounts for the evidence, etc. we should not forget about in the courtroom of one's own mind when judging what happened. So right now, with all we do not have evidence for or real accountability for to the degree needed in the case - whatever happened, happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't follow the case, but it scares me that so many people can feel so certain about her guilt if there wasn't enough evidence to convict her in court.

I know it is scary. I see that a forensic psychiatrist, the rights to his book Inside the Mind of Casey Anthony St. Martin's press aquired the rights to. I don't know who he is, but they are going to try to rush print it. I wouldn't be surprised if narcisssitic traits are talked about, but I don't know if she's a narcissist though, same with her lying, does that make her a pathological liar as some make her out to be already? I wonder if he's even examined, talked with Casey himself?

One thing she could do for herself, I think, is try to set things straight with a book/documentary something where she can at least present her side of things herself. I wouldn't necessarily view it as "profiting" from what happened with the case, but in trying to overcome what has happened to her life because of it, and hopefully be able to give reasnable, rational explanations and accountibility for some evidence that was presented in the case. I don't know if that would even help, but getting your side out there, if I were in her shackles, would be of primary importance to me, as well as making money. One might not have many choices in those deparments, I mean, it's not like she can apply at a store and work as a cashier, you know? I'm very interested in seeing what happens in regards to all that.

Also what about them wanting to bill her, for the search costs and whatnot? I think she'd walk. I think it's double jeopardy. Lying she already is paying the price for - serving time, and fines. I don't think they can bill her for the over 100,000 in costs. Your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also what about them wanting to bill her, for the search costs and whatnot? I think she'd walk. I think it's double jeopardy. Lying she already is paying the price for - serving time, and fines. I don't think they can bill her for the over 100,000 in costs. Your thoughts?
I assume that the attempts to recover costs from her will be a civil case, not a criminal one. So, the issue of double jeopardy does not arise. I hope that they can get a sizable judgement against her, which will take away any profit she makes from her lying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume that the attempts to recover costs from her will be a civil case, not a criminal one. So, the issue of double jeopardy does not arise. I hope that they can get a sizable judgement against her, which will take away any profit she makes from her lying.

I'll have to take a look at that some more. The cost for the defense of Casey, is said to be over $100,000 paid for by using Floridians tax money and the like.

Right now, I just read about this:

juror number three—Jennifer Ford, a 32-year-old nursing student—told ABC News, "I did not say she was innocent" and "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be." She said that the jurors were "sick to their stomachs" over the decision to deliver a "Not Guilty" verdict and that it overwhelmed them to the point where they did not want to talk to reporters afterwards.

So they really had a hard won fight against emotionalism and such, in order to deliver a just verdict in this case. Looks like they really wanted her to be found guilty, but could not find enough evidence to, according to this juror, and it sickened them.Good thing they didn't let their stomachs or emotions get in the way of their minds in rendering a just verdict.

Also this Caylee Law, as it's been proposed, this is a good article on why it's a bad idea as it stands:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/caylees-law-casey-anthony-_n_893953.html

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also what about them wanting to bill her, for the search costs and whatnot? I think she'd walk.

I think it's very likely she will lose the civil case, should they bring one against her for the cost of the search. They acted on (and incurred costs) directly as a result of the lies she told about her "missing" child. Civil cases merely need a "preponderance of the evidence" as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt". 51% against her and she loses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's very likely she will lose the civil case, should they bring one against her for the cost of the search. They acted on (and incurred costs) directly as a result of the lies she told about her "missing" child. Civil cases merely need a "preponderance of the evidence" as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt". 51% against her and she loses.

A civil case, of some sort, may happen; but what would be the effects? As far as I know, Casey Anthony isn't very wealthy. If the state of Florida sues they'll just be spending extra tax funds on two new trials: a civil suit and a bankruptcy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A civil case, of some sort, may happen; but what would be the effects? As far as I know, Casey Anthony isn't very wealthy. If the state of Florida sues they'll just be spending extra tax funds on two new trials: a civil suit and a bankruptcy.

The suit I'm talking about is being considered by a private entity, Texas Equusearch, who alleges they spent $112,000 looking for the "missing" child. I would assume they would also seek legal fees as well. What effect? It's hard to tell. Casey Anthony would not be the first person in her position to profit considerably from a book deal following a high profile case like this. It is only right that the private company have the opportunity to pursue civil damages based on the liability she incurred on them with her lies.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have only been following this case for a few days. The only emotion/subjectivity that plays into my judgment of her, would be how fucking attractive she is to me.....

I thing shes a total scumbag, an absolute disgrace to humanity. Hmm.

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...