A final Casey Anthony thought

You know, I didn’t sit through the entire trial, so I don’t know the ins and outs of it that well, but what occurs to me is that this may be a perfect example of the justice system doing its job.

Did she do it? Probably, but that doesn’t mean it was proven beyond a shadow of doubt. I, and other liberals, always yammer that it’s better for a system to occasionally let a guilty person free than vice versa, and then when that very thing happens suddenly we’re all shouting that it’s a travesty.

Undoubtedly the jury “knew” she did it, but were bound to go simply by the evidence in front of them. It’s possible, then, that this is for the best. It shows that our justice system is still run by laws and not by juries acting on their own accord.

So sure, maybe Casey Anthony got away with murder, but I’ve got a feeling that the innocent people who don’t get sent to prison for crimes they didn’t commit are grateful that their juries also didn’t reach a verdict based on intuition and gut feelings.


2 responses to “A final Casey Anthony thought

  1. I actually agree with you; as tough as it is for some people to get, despite how anyone might personally feel, the jury could not convict if they were not positive she did it.  The prosecution could not prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, she did.  And I think this was a death row case, too and now she can’t ever be charged for first or second degree murder again, the most anyone could get her for would be manslaughter maybe?  Or someone of her family taking her to civil court which isn’t likely.

    People like Nancy Grace who have been all over this story and are now freaking out about the outcome are really not helping matters, either.  For a former prosecuter, you’d think she’d know better.  But when she says things like this: “They were wrong: Tot mom murdered her daughter”, stuff like that will come back to haunt her.  Because now it’s out there, and “Tot Mom” – aka Casey, can go after her for libel at least and slander if she actually said it on TV.

    She’s been acquitted of murder, a jury of her peers said she did not murder her daughter.  She doesn’t need to make book deals now, she can start to go after people for defamation of character (whether she has one or not is not the point, either).

  2. Whoa.  “Shadow of doubt” is not the standard.  If the jury “knew” she did it, then they should have convicted. 

    Reasonable doubt is not a challenge to imagine alternate explanations — it’s whether a reasonable person, after hearing the evidence, believes the accused did it.  “Reasonable doubt” is a reason not to believe in guilt, not something you tack after you’ve been convinced of guilt.

    That said, I’d rather see guilty people walk than innocent people getting punished. 

    But it’s reasonable to believe that sometimes there’s only circumstantial evidence.  If, after hearing only circumstantial evidence, the jury “knew” she did it, then it would appear the circumstantial evidence was sufficient after all.

    A good jury would have let her go, and then would sleep soundly at night.  That’s what happens if the doubt is reasonable.  But if, as the one juror was saying on TV, they’re all sick at having to let her go, then it would appear they let the accused go because of imaginary doubt.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s