Official Discussion Thread: the Casey Anthony verdict (murder, attorney, evidence)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...but you can't convict somebody based on the way you feel about it - remove the emotion and look objectively at the trial and it's easy to see why the 12 people whose opinions actually matter said "not guilty".
Sorry, but I totally disagree...and by far the majority disagree with you. All the elements and evidence points 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and common sense that Casey Anthony is responsible for the death of baby Caylee.
Your belief is greatly in the minority, including those that disagree with you that are legal scholars and those practicing in the legal profession.
The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case. Proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt', therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.
Sorry, but I totally disagree...and by far the majority disagree with you. All the elements and evidence points 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and common sense that Casey Anthony is responsible for the death of baby Caylee.
Your belief is greatly in the minority, including those that disagree with you that are legal scholars and those practicing in the legal profession.
My belief may be in the minority of public opinion, but it is in consensus with the only 12 people whose opinion actually mattered. Remember, they were sequestered and did not see the inadmissable stuff and couldn't watch the nonsense coming from "the legal experts" on tv.
My wife is an attorney and we talk to people practicing in the legal profession. You might be surprised by how small the minority is.
Sorry, but I totally disagree...and by far the majority disagree with you. All the elements and evidence points 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and common sense that Casey Anthony is responsible for the death of baby Caylee.
Your belief is greatly in the minority, including those that disagree with you that are legal scholars and those practicing in the legal profession.
"What makes this country free is not majority rule, but freedom from the tyranny of the majority."
I don't know who said that, but I agree with it.
Just because the majority think something, doesn't make it right or true. I would also hesitate to jump on the legal scholar/legal profession bandwagon offering up opinions on a case where they haven't studied the case file. Their opinions are on the same level as anyone else who just watched it on TV or read about it online.
The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case. Proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt', therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.
Two points: the jurors didn't see many things in the courtroom that we did. They didn't see the media we did (supposedly).
The Casey Anthony verdict is a bitter pill for many of us to swallow. I believed that she was guilty of first degree murder and the evidence showed that beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that the victim was a two year old child and was so vulnerable makes the murder particularly awful.
What must be accepted though is that it is not the legal system that failed. If there is failure that failure is with the twelve people who were selected to serve on the jury.
No system that is designed by humans (and run by humans) will ever be non-fallible. Sometimes I think a good way to describe our system of criminal justice is that it is the "worst system in the world", except for all the others. We can try to learn from our mistakes. Sometimes we may even form a consensus that some modest tinkering with the system (changing jury selection procedures) may be appropriate.
What is both wrong and ridiculous is to contend that the failure to convict Casey Anthony proves that our system is a failure. I would venture to say that 98% of the time juries make the right decision in criminal cases. So, on the whole our system works well. That doesn't mean we don't on occasion see a miscarriage of justice. I, for one, will continue to "soldier on" and support this system knowing in my heart that its core principles are the right principles. I will work for and support reasonable improvements in this system and I will continue to defend all honest and conscientious players in this system including the police, the prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges.
As disappointed as I am regarding the out come of this trial, you are absolutely correct.
The jury made the wrong decision...but it was based on the right reasons.
We have to respect it and move on.
Casey is a psycho. It won't be long before she thinks she's infallible again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
