Friday, July 8, 2011

It's OVER!!! The Trial Is Finished! Casey Anthony Will be a Free Woman Soon!!

I'm as disappointed as the next person in terms of the lack of justice for little Caylee, but it's over. If someone wants to create a new law making it mandatory to report a missing child within a reasonable interval, that's great. If someone wants to create a charity in Caylee's name, that's equally good. We can't re-write existing laws and expect them to apply retroactively, though, nor can we try to apply civil rights violation charges when said charges apply only when officers of the law are involved. Whether we like it or not, Casey will be a free woman very soon.

Some of the arguments in favor of the jury's verdicts are backward in my opinion. One argument heard frequently is that he jury saw and heard all testimony, while we, the masses, merely caught snippets of the trial. In some cases that may be true, but in other cases, such as mine, due to the modern miracle invention known as the DVR, I saw and heard every piece of evidence and every word of testimony. Perhaps, as my parents insist, I was obsessing, but I obsess over much lower profile cases than this one. As someone who plans to someday enter the legal profession, I find myself totally engrossed with any and all court procedures. I watched not only what the jury saw, but also what they didn't see. I heard arguments that never made it in front of the jury, and I heard discussion from the experts on a nightly basis, to which the jury panel was not privy.

What the jury didn't see or hear can't be held against them, but I can't help believing that if they knew everything that those of us who watched the totality of coverage knew, the verdict might have been different. Then again, perhaps the members of the jury were in a hurry to get their lives back, and perhaps the "not guilty" voters [on the signifiant charges] felt more strongly than the "guilty" voters did, and the quickest way out of there was to let Casey walk on all but the least consequential charges. Then again, maybe each juror voted according to his or her conscience based on his or her respective ability to process the evidence and testimony as it was presented.

One thing that blows me away about this trial, and about other high profile trials I've seen in my life, is the people who stand outside the courthouse cheering or jeering, or possibly even holding signs. Who among us has the time to put their lives on hold for such activity? It's sheer madness.

1 comment:

  1. So, with your wider view of the entire case, do you think she was guilty?

    But if so, guilty of what? Of murder, of being a less than perfect parent?

    Is it possible that a prosecutor might be tempted to go for a high status crime rather than a lesser one to obtain points for their re-election?

    So a person who is guilty of a lesser crime and is not charged with that crime, but charged with a higher crime, when they are found not guilty of the higher crime (murder as opposed to child neglect, for example) might get away with the lesser crime because the DA decided to use the case to bolster their career?

    I beleive in at least one State in the USA they do not have elected DAs, they have staff DAs who do not have to be elected, which is how the system works in the UK, Eire, Australia, etc.

    Is there less of a temptation to make a grandstand play, I wonder in places that do not have elected prosecutors?