In the verdict of the Casey Anthony trial, the jurors basically found Ms. Anthony not responsible for the death of her daughter. The facts must have bore out that there was unsubstantiated evidence in the juror’s decision that the little girl’s mother wasn’t involved in her demise. Nevertheless, was justice served?
i think the jury said that there was not enough evidence to convict anthony for murder, abuse, or manslaughter…that doesnt really say anything about what happened…
Knowing all of that and not determining how the little girl died, was justice served?
If they avoided convicting the wrong person, then yes… that was perhaps the last vestige of justice.
Enjoy it for the short time it can still occur.
For the justice involved concerning the actual criminal, another trial must be had after proper, un-presumptuous investigation has led to the actual criminal, if there actually was one at all.
“Was justice served?” sounds a lot like “Did the bad guy get punished?” to me. But isn’t justice better conceived of as choosing the most beneficial course? I don’t know if the most beneficial course of action is being chosen in this case or not, but I’m not especially worried about it. We do our best, and our justice system isn’t so bad, relatively speaking.
No. It was not. But here’s a funny picture.
My first thoughts were that either the prosecution f-ed up royally or Casey Anthony is innocent. The prosecution made the mistake of going to trial prematurely. Their evidence of modus operandi, cause of death, etc. were obviously weak enough that the jury could not confirm most of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Reminds me of the movie 12 Angry Men.
A lot of the evidence doesn’t look favorably on Casey Anthony, but none of it that I know of is strong enough to connect her to the murder of her child.
She was treated fairly in her trial, more-so than the media, if that’s what you mean. But I seriously doubt Casey would want her actions reciprocated, like allowing her to believe something she actually loves is lost for a month when it really isn’t. That alone is a cruelty which affected more people than she could possibly provide retribution for. So, no, justice wasn’t served. 3 years in prison is not ample retribution for the mockery she made of human compassion and sensibility, both inside and outside the confines of the court.
Yeah, she really did a number on her parents…saying that her dad was sexually abusive and that he buried the child’s body. I forget what she said about her mother.
My idea of justice being served would be the identity of the person who was responsible for the death of little Caylee. Then stand trial in the presence of their peers to answer for that crime. At this point, that dead little girl has nothing or nobody who can give her the justice she deserves.
Of course, had Casey Anthony not lied to the cops, then they wouldn’t have been running around looking for the body for six months, so there might have been more physical evidence that could have linked Casey, or someone else, to the actual murder.
At best, Casey Anthony was an accomplice in her daughter’s death. I don’t buy that her daughter drowned in a pool and she (Casey) panicked and ditched the body and lied about her daughter’s whereabouts for months whatsoever. That’s completely implausible. I would imagine that the majority of people should know that they’re not going to prison for an accidental drowning.
Had the body been discovered (much) earlier, then maybe it could be proven that she didn’t die from drowning at all and the whole story (should Casey Anthony have went with that story) could have been proven to be garbage.
I think that the main thing that everyone should keep in mind is that, “Not guilty,” is not synonymous with, “Innocent,” so the jury seems like they damn well think she had something to do with it. The problem is that the prosecution had nothing except circumstantial evidence and a garbage motive. The motive they tried to establish basically amounts to, “So she wouldn’t be responsible for a child anymore,” which could be said for any parent whose kid dies. At the same time, that was what the prosecution had to work with, so they had to try it.
It totally sucks, because I think she’s guilty as Hell, either that, or she has a strange way of grieving and weird Google Search habits. Although, I told my wife the day before they announced the verdict, “If this is enough to get her on murder, there will be some innocent people that find themselves in prison in the future.” It’s actually a relief to know that there are juries out there that can be guided more by the letter of the law than by their emotions.
Doesn’t Florida have any laws concerning the proper treatment of a corpse, though? What she did (in terms of disposing the body) would be some pretty serious shit in Ohio.
The problem is getting a straight answer from that person [assuming [s]he were ever caught] and the assumption that said peers could accurately discern fact from fiction and base a judgment solely on the former.
All in all, I would think your idea of justice is extremely rare in any certain terms.
The lack of retribution for that alone was, in my opinion, the beginning of the injustice [not just a lack of justice]. The media will only make it worse.
I’m honestly not sure such a jury has ever existed, or ever will.
Yeah, that part blew my mind too. They can charge the proprietor of a crematorium for hiding bodies, but not a woman for bagging her child and tossing her in a makeshift pet cemetery.
I agree with that completely, unfortunately, with that being the only crime they could get her on, the judge actually hit her with the statutory maximum, and made it consecutive sentences. He is bound to give her time served, and the sentence would have likely been appealed if she could prove good behavior and it wasn’t taken into account.
Probably not, but I think this jury made the right call. A call that was as hard as Hell to make, but the right call.
It’s crazy!
Your avatar was pretty awesome, btw.