Casey Anthony, Death Row Innocents, And Media Priorities
July 07, 2011 2:08 pm ET by Simon Maloy
The years-long media frenzy over the trial of Casey Anthony is reaching its denouement. On Tuesday, the 25-year old Florida woman, arrested in 2008 and charged with killing her two-year-old daughter, was acquitted of murder charges and found guilty of lying to police. This morning she received her sentence and headed back to jail. Ever since the verdict was read, cable news has been saturated with overheated speculation as to whether the system of justice had failed by letting Casey Anthony, who was facing the death penalty, live.
It is an important discussion to have, given that it deals with the authority our courts and juries have to impose the ultimate punishment of death. But it is being led by journalists who expected Anthony to be convicted and executed. Fox News' Geraldo Rivera marveled just after Anthony was acquitted that she was "a woman that we felt, just hours ago, just an hour ago, could have been walking down the green mile, down the last walk to the death chamber ... that she would be there, sitting some years from now with needles in her veins, forfeiting her life for that poor child."
It's impossible to say with complete certainty whether the justice system failed with respect to Casey Anthony. What is known, however, is that the same justice system has absolutely failed catastrophically by sending people to death row for crimes they did not commit. We know this because several of those people have, by dint of good fortune and hard work by lawyers and journalists, been exonerated and set free. But those failures get just a fraction of the media attention paid to trials like that of Casey Anthony.
MSNBC's Chris Hayes illustrated this point on July 5, contrasting the coverage of the Anthony trial to the saga of Cory Maye, who was convicted of the murder of a police officer and sentenced to die after an error-riddled farce of a trial, and freed earlier this week when he pleaded guilty to a less severe manslaughter charge and received credit for time served. As Hayes put it: "The truly horrifying thought, on a day when the country's attention is so focused on murder and justice, is that while a case like Casey Anthony's can command our national attention, there are almost certainly other Cory Mayes out there who languish out of the spotlight."
Hayes is right. Since 2008, when Casey Anthony became a constant fixture on cable news, The Innocence Project has helped exonerate dozens of wrongly convicted people, including two men sentenced to die for murders they did not commit.
On February 15, 2008, Kennedy Brewer of Mississippi was exonerated of his 1995 conviction for the murder of a three-year-old girl. DNA testing conducted in 2001 proved Brewer's innocence, though he remained in jail for another six years until being released in August 2007. The key evidence against Brewer had been alleged bite marks on the body of the victim that a discredited forensic odonotologist testified could only have come from Brewer. The defense expert argued that they were insect bites. The DNA tests that eventually cleared Brewer also implicated another man, who subsequently confessed to the murder.
On August 25, 2008, Michael Blair of Texas was exonerated of his 1994 conviction for the murder of a seven-year-old girl. Again, DNA testing excluded Blair as the murderer and implicated another man, who had since passed away. Blair had his conviction thrown out and the murder charge dropped. He is still serving a life sentence for other crimes to which he has confessed.
The execution of a prisoner is the ultimate assertion of the state's authority to dispense justice. As such, a wrongful sentence of death is the most egregious error our judicial system can make. These three cases show that these errors are made often -- often enough, you would think, that the media would sacrifice some of the overhyped "trial of the century" coverage to give them the attention they deserve.
Casey Anthony's case is an immediate concern.
The American public doesn't have the attention span for ongoing, long-term issues. They love things that they can get their panties in a wad about for a short period of time. They're attracted to famous and infamous people in the short-term. They don't show much interest in long-term failures in our country. In addition, many Americans don't like to acknowledge that our country ever "fails".
Add all these things up, and it doesn't surprise me that the media doesn't cover these stories - the average consumer of media stories doesn't really want to see stories about the shortcomings of our usage of the death penalty.
Now, I believe that the media should, as the holders of licenses which state that they'll benefit the public, force us to see these kinds of stories so that the public is better educated, but they're driven by commercial success dictates and not by what'd be best for those on death row! Their priorities are governed by what makes their shareholders the richest.
Hey it's the FOXPAC nighttime line-up "Oh'Really Factor", "Hamster" and "Off the Record" that have been exclusively covering this trial instead of working hard spinning the obvious republican hypocrisy on the debt ceiling for the past 4 days
Your disrespect for our judicial system is duly noted, however.
Because people who are innocent are regularly sentenced to die and sometimes have their lives stripped from them, there should not be a death penalty. If their crime they're convicted of is heinous enough, sentence them to life without parole.
I have been following this case from the start, getting multiple points of view, including message boards with local people confirming everything relevant that's been reported on television. I've been to the dump site personally. I've probably forgotten more about this case than almost anyone here knows about it. I am also, as my years of posting here will testify, a very open-minded person. If there's a plausible scenario that exonerates Casey, I'd like to hear it. Hell, I'm begging people to give one.
But until that happens, then there is no reasonable doubt. That has not, and can not, be denied.
If your answer is no, then keep your backseat legal opinion to yourself.
Wouldn't your logic also apply to discussions of, say, the amount of black people on Death Row in Texas? Nobody was on all of those juries, so how can anyone say that the eyewitness testimony wasn't accurate, that bigoted policemen didn't railroad or plant evidence, or racist judges didn't give them fair trials? The suggestion that the jury must be right because I wasn't there is utterly ludicrous.
It does seem that the jury was at least reasonable in concluding that the state failed to meet its intentionally very difficult standard.
Are you advocating for a legal system that kills more innocent people so fewer guilty people get away?
Also, it doesn't matter how the crime was committed. If there's no way of knowing that, then that does not preclude a guilty verdict, for the very reasons demonstrated in this case. Casey Anthony made the efforts to deceive and delay until the physical evidence was compromised, then it's "oh, we can't convict her". Absolute lunacy.
I also never said anything about the death penalty, if you'll notice. My concern is the conviction in this case, regardless of the punishment.
I don't know. I guess first degree murder might be tough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt without a cause of death or time of death. Knowing someone did it and proving it are two different things.
Have any jurors spoken about why they found her not guilty?
The main thing I've heard is what's said here, "not enough evidence", but there's no explanation as to why the circumstances were not considered. Those are evidence as well.
IF I had watched the trial, I would very likely have concluded that she was guilty. It's probably not the right verdict based on what actually happened.
Whether it's the right verdict based on the evidence presented to the jury I don't know.
You're not helping yourself, Boswell.
I'm not disagreeing with his opinion, merely offering up the opinion of a legal analyst I trust as to why it was a difficult conviction.
I suspect Boswell has thumbs-downed every post he's seen from me here. Considering his unhinged behavior, it's not something to take very seriously.
You use long posts to justify this, but ultimately you are no different from Nancy Grace who wants some form of vigilante justice in place of the system of legal proceedings that the 6th amendment provides.
Our feelings on the matter are irrelevant. The jury has spoken and this episode of Night Court is at an end.
Juries can and should consider circumstantial evidence. That's part of judgment. You don't get the benefit of the doubt because you created the doubt. I have yet to see anyone challenge that principle, or anything I've posted here for that matter, in any meaningful way.
No, you arent calling for her head on a pike. No, you arent saying she should fry. You have (again, to your credit) made it clear that you have no interest in what the sentencing should be. What you are saying is that she's guilty and the only reason she didnt get sentenced is because the jury was wrong.
Again, our feelings are irrelevant. The jury decided and, because the law is the law, that is game over.
Sorry for the long post.
My only concern is that we are letting our feelings on the matter dictate how we act in regards to criminal matters. We can be upset at the verdict (note: i'm not thrilled) but we can't call the system into question because we don't like the outcome.
It's a small step from that reasoning to using the reasoning of our "second amendment options" to problems we cant solve within the system.
Let me also make clear that when I'm talking about the consideration of circumstantial evidence, that's not wishful thinking. That's the way it already is, and that's why the decision was so poor.
1) the car was out of her control or access for something like 18 days while in impound
2) strong odor from trunk after 18 days parked in the sun. No indication it was a body and the body was not found there
3) the dogs had "hits" in the yard but none of them were for her body, perhaps she had had "accidents" there or just sat in those spots for long periods.
4) yes she bought food and stuff and went to the bank.
none of the above make her guilty ot not guilty, but you simply having a "theory" ALSO does not make her guilty ot not guilty
2)A cadaver dog also hit on the trunk, so "no indication" seems like an odd claim. Why is it a problem that the body was not found there? Once the body was in the trunk for a couple of weeks, she was obligated to keep it there forever?
3)The cadaver dog, trained to find human remains, smelled an "accident"?
4)She bought food and went to the bank. She went partying, also, and stole money. And went on a date right after the disappearance. Everyone grieves differently, I know, but it is very difficult to believe that behavior follows the accidental death of a beloved child.
It's not about having a specific theory, either. It's about the lack of a plausible alternative to the appearance that the defendant herself created.
are you so dumb as to think that "cadaver" dogs only smell cadavers? yes they smell humans and all their attendant smells (I bet you think your sh1t don't stink either). and none the other things you were told to list automatically make her guilty OR not guilty.
These dogs can't tell the difference between human remains and feces? Note the italics. If they signaled at any and all remnants of living humans, how on earth do you imagine they would serve any useful purpose whatsoever? I can't wait to hear you explain this one.
Are you going to explain your position on what cadaver dogs do, or not? You questioned my intelligence on the matter, so it would be a good idea for you to support your argument.
This does not constitute reasonable doubt.
As for reading for comprehension, I never suggested that cadaver dogs were perfect or could pinpoint the time at which a body was at a certain point.
Accepting the idea that cadaver dogs are intended to detect decomposition, not hair or feces, and that this is an established practice (hence the use of it in trials) is hardly living in "fantasy". You seem quite unhinged.
sheesh you are depressingly stupid
In case you are talking about actual human decomposition, what were people supposed to find in a place where a body had been?
Please try to make yourself clear instead of playing semantic games, twisting my words, and lobbing unwarranted insults. You know, treating someone like an enemy because they don't agree with you, and all that.
Do you really want to pursue that point?
Get off your high horse and do a bit of legal research. The first thing you should do is read up on the Lindy Chamberlain case (subject of the Meryl Streep film Evil Angels). In this case a woman was essentially convicted on the basis of the community's attitude to her reaction to her baby's disappearance (allegedly taken by a dingo). It took a Coronial Inquiry (supported the dingo hypothesis), a trial (convicted Lindy Chamberlain of murderand then Husband Michael as an accessory), an appeal to the High Court of Australia (conviction upheld), a Royal Commission (found conviction unsafe) and a further Coronial Inquest (open verdict) before the now Ms.Chamberlain-Creighton was exonerated.
I presume you would have convicted Ms.Chamberlain? Thank God we do not have capital punishment in Australia.
Lesson: the rules of evidence and criminal law proceduure are there for a purpose and we ignore them at our peril.
If not, then you can presume nothing about how I would evaluate the evidence in that case. You can act as if I'm basing this off of some personal dislike all day long, but my posts have given ample reasons for conviction within the rules of evidence and procedure that you cite. You are just another person who has made the same lame argument without refuting a single thing I've posted here. Good job.
Gmce, don't you think the fact that years later they did in fact find the babies sweater and hairs in or near a dingo's den, help exonerate Ms. Chamberlain?
In all fairness Mrs. C was not acting anything like Cayce Anthony when her child went missing. It was a complete case of misjudgement. They put her and her husband through hell.
The fact that further evidence punched a hole in the prosecution's case doesn't change the fact that she should never have been convicted in the first place.
Prejudice is prejudice and the conviction was always unsafe - the new evidence didn't magically change whether she did it or not.
Bearing in mind the extraordinary difficulty in getting jury verdicts overturned in the U.S., even in the face of incontrovertable evidence of innocence, makes it imperative that extreme caution be taken before convicting.
In the office I worked in two young men were convicted of a murder and served eight years, before a dying inmate confessed and his DNA matched the unaccountable DNA on the duck tape over the victims mouth. The boys were convicted because of an overzealous deputy DA (she was fired) and two crooked cops that wanted to be heroes in solving a murder. One retired right away and the other is Chief of Police in another town. Makes my blood boil.
I've learned my gut instincts are usually right. I felt those boys were innocent from the beginning and they were. I also thought Mrs. Chamberlain was innocent. I wasn't as close to the case as you were. But my oldest brother has owned a home in New Zealand since 1970, all of his wife's family is in N.Z. or Australia. At that time they lived in Australia off and on. So I heard a lot about the trial from them and the news. Some of them thought she was guilty. I never did.
But back to the other point. It is not always a case of the prosecutors and defence attorneys doing well or poorly, but often having a really terrible jury.
One man’s travesty is another man’s miracle.
Your view point is missing an important component. The element of innocent until PROVEN guilty.
As bad as a wrongful acquittal might be, it pales in significance to an innocent woman being convicted of a horrible crime that she did not commit.
That is that and no amount of belly-aching is going to change the verdict anymore than whingeing about an umpire's decision will change the result of a footy match.
The judge adjudicates the law and the jury adjudicates the facts. That's as good as it gets in an imperfect world.
The bit about changing the verdict is a strawman. Do better, please.
And while I would agree that it is probably better to acquit guilty people as opposed to convicting innocent people, that doesn't mean that every "not guilty" verdict is okay.
It's okay to view each case on its own merits.
The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt.
You've got it 'round the wrong way. This is how a criminal trial works:
The prosecution presents evidence with the intention of proving the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The defense, if it chooses, may contest the prosecution case either by contesting it outright or merely by casting doubt upon it. I have seen defence counsel rest without calling any witnesses and then successfully demolish the prosecution's case in its address to the jury.
The judge sums up the case to the jury, instructing them on the relevant law and summarising the relevant questions that the jury must answer in order to come to a verdict.
At that point the jury retires and discusses the evidence presented to them and the judges instructions and questions. Largely, they answer the judges questions and come to the appropriate verdict.
At no time is the defence "proving" anything, that's the prosecution's function. If the juror's answers to the relevant questions indicate that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt then they must acquit.
It has nothing to do with the defendant proving anyting.
The story has received complete coverage by EVERY news organization yet only Fox & Geraldo are called out in the article .... some people never miss an opportunity for a partisan attack.
Another factor was the lack of DNA evidence. Stories are now popping up about the "CSI Effect" where it becomes increasingly difficult to get a conviction without conclusive DNA evidence that is now expected to be presented in court.
If the Casey Anthony case happened in 1995, and the OJ case in 2011, the likelihood of both getting Murder-1 convictions would have been much more likely.
Um, no, they wouldn't, unless the prosecution in both cases did a better job of developing their cases.
Once they PROVED some evidence was planted how could the jury trust the rest of the evidence. The prosecution also put forward a scenario that was basically impossible.
OJ was most likely guilty but the prosecution made it impossible for the jury to convict
I came to the same conclusion the jury did: besides everything else, OJ simply lacked the opportunity to commit this murder. It was an impossible timetable.
Also don't know how he did it without getting blood all over the place.
It was an obvious drug hit, IMO. But people go nuts whenever you ask them what specific evidence tied OJ to the murder.
Seems like you know what you are talikng about. Perhaps I've miss judged.
Then rad posts this...
To which you reply...
So you ARE just full of sh!t... my mistake.
This was a simple case. The fact that most people think that you can convict based upon "motive" and "opportunity" alone is very scary.
In that case then anyone can be convicted of almost anything.
Oh man I better clean up my thoughts about wingnuts.
You are seriously arguing against judgment. Do you realize how crazy that is?
A reasonable doubt is a reasonable doubt is a reasonable doubt.
Please read up on jurisprudence as well as rules of evidence an procedure.
What is the plausible scenario that supports the defense? There has to be one, or the doubt can't be deemed "reasonable" by definition.
And what procedure has been violated, exactly?
Let's say a woman's husband goes missing, she claims he left, produces a note in his handwriting to that effect. A couple of years later, scrutiny and doubt begin, and the skeleton of the husband is found buried in the backyard. The note is proved forged. The woman says "it was an accident".
Now, with no skeletal damage, the cause of death could be shooting, stabbing, choking, drowning, evisceration, asphyxiation, exsanguination, and maybe one or two others I'm not thinking of at the moment. So is there reasonable doubt in that case because there's absolutely no way to prove cause of death?
Considering you personally admitted that people get convicted without a body being found, obviously you've admitted that circumstantial evidence does matter. You just can't support the argument that it wasn't sufficient in this case. Failing to address the hypothetical just supports that conclusion.
On top of that, you previously evaluated the justification for the public reaction to Casey Anthony based on the similarity to public reaction to a completely different case. That's like judging someone for striking a man for having an affair with his wife because you once saw someone struck simply because he was gay. Reactions can be understandable or not based on different factors, therefore you can make no inference based solely on the reaction.
If you can't see the obvious fallacies in your reasoning, then it's not me that needs to do any reflecting.
The first is that your argument about Lindy Chamberlain was all about "prejudice", while making assumptions based on a similarity in public reaction instead of the facts of the case is clearly prejudicial.
The second is that you're saying I don't qualify for "I think, therefore I am", yet you're insisting that I accept the jury's verdict simply because they came up with the verdict. That's the non-thinking way to go, obviously.
Thanks for the laughs, anyway.
It works to create the presumption that all law enforcement has access to the most advanced forensic resources and there is always a conclusive answer. If the case isn't that neat and tidy (which it often isn't) the jury sometimes blames the state for a sloppy investigation.
I don't know about OJ in 2011. The forensics were solidly against him, but the prosecution screwed up and his defense team did a fantastic job muddying the waters with hints of racial animus.
No doubt - did you see the Frontline called Second Chances? Chilling...
I want to believe the majority of law enforcers are honest, but most of them will admit to knowing of corruption among them at one time or another.
Police Union attacks facts, says cops are all saints defendants all scum
BTW I just now noticed and replied to your reply to my post yesterday, on the other post.
What? There would be no new trial unless there was new overwhelming evidence that came to light.
Gee, Boulderhippy, that never would have occurred to me. Thanks for the insight.
highlyunlikely immediately responds to prove my point.
Get ready, wait, wait .... congo and kabneil will chime in with their worthless drivel.
If you mentioned me and I happened to notice, I'd respond, no question about it.
And in case you are forgetting your popularity around here, quite a number of people respond to your posts, I've seen the same people also respond to different posts of yours.
So all of these people are obsessed with you the way FOX is obsessed with Obama because they "respond" to him as much as they do right?
Wow, thanks for pointing that out.
My take on the article was that there was a problem with the media "pre-convicting" Casey Anthony for the crime of murder. (see Nancy Grace's take for an example)
From what I read MMFA was not passing judgement on the judicial system, they were making a point about what part the media plays in this.
McCoy did not have a prior criminal record and, rather than denying the crime, confessed on the night of the murder.
The jury deliberated for a few hours, not days.
There was no ongoing string of appeals (McCoy's family did not want any). McCoy has only once filed a habeas petition, which was rejected.
She saw the opportunity, in television, to become prosecutor, judge, jury and baying mob all rolled into one. Unfortunately the U.S. does not have contempt laws governing matters that are sub judice.
The potential for trials to become polluted by counsel on either side running matters not relevant to the case as distractions and in order to taint jurors seems to have become an artform whilst the trend for media personalities to seek notoriety by making ill-informed comment is a further degradation of the legal process.
In Australia we take these matters so seriously that egotists who place themselves above the law run the very real risk of heavy fines and or imprisonment.
I thought she would tone it down after she drove that one young mother to suicide. But she hasn't. Actually, she often has a crazy look in her eyes, with flared nostrils, while screaming over someone. It's always guilty as charged with her.
http://www.wesh.com/r/9885228/detail.html
Fox and Geraldo are NOT singled out. The article plainly states that there has been a "years-long media frenzy over the trial of Casey Anthony," and that, in 2008, "Casey Anthony became a constant fixture on cable news."
---
Left Hook!
http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/
Moving to Somalia, huh?
They seem to have the kind of government that you are looking for.
So I have a question... are those who CANNOT see it's flaws (and I am assuming we are talking about 'Merica) are also free to leave- as in buh-bye?
Cannot those of us who both see and not see flaws leave?
I value your imput and await your response...
You might leave because you love America and this country would be much better if you were not in it. The air would be sweeter without the corruption of your stench
If you have EVER been in the judicial system of the United States in the past, oh..., I don't know, 35 (55, maybe many longer years), OR just sat in court rooms for fun,
you would:
1. Know it's a phucking joke
2. Realize 'our' system kills innocents and lets very bad people who do very bad things to all of us go free...
3. And it will continue...
And in a thread where the improper use of "it's" has already been ridiculued!
One of the most un-American sentiments that exists. You disgusting, brainwashed troll. The country would be better off if all you psychophantic morons who suck up to power obsessively left our good country. It would make it so much easier to make the country and world better places.
Care to enumerate the facets of the us justice system which make it unique and the "best in the world"?
Is it the for-profit prisons sending kickbacks to judges?
Is it the fact it has the highest incarceration rate in the world?
The forced prison labour?
There has been no response.
Is anybody surprised?
But you're avoiding the question. "Attacking" Fox and "lying about" Fox are not the same if the attacks are based in truth. If you can find even one specific article on MMFA in which something false was stated about Fox, you may have a point. But since every article is backed up with quotes and citations directly from Fox, we both know that won't happen.
1. "These Media Morons losers" is a string of ad hominem attacks that in no way address phlcstgan's request that you provide evidence. You are a sock-puppet.
2. "attack Fox News on a daily basis" is a outright falsehood. To call it an attack is to imply that it is either vicious or undeserved - which would be incorrect. To simply replay and quote the things that have been said isnt attacking, its journalism. You are a sock-puppet.
3. Your comment about how we "call them racist, despite the lily-white lineup" is playing the race card. Yes, some Fox personalites have openly said racist remarks or at least actively engaged in race baiting. We do not attribute their racism to their skin color, but to the things they say and do. Stop making this about race, you sock-puppet.
4. To suggest that we all watch "Republican hating, religion bashing network, MSDNC" is both a sweeping generalization (in that all liberals watch the same thing), and a hasty generalization (in that MSNBC is republican hating, religion bashing). MSNBC has a liberal bias (just like reality) but to say that they shill for the democratic party is false. MSNBC is not the ideological opposite of Fox News - your media overlords just want you to see it that way. But then again, you don't care about things like "reality" and "facts" when you have talking points, do you, sock-puppet?
And unless you have proof for your claim that "This group HATES Republicans, HATES Fox News, HATES Clarence Thomas, and HATES anybody and everybody that doesn't have a D next to their name", you are merely spewing more talking points.
Have I called you a sock-puppet yet today? Pretty sure I did sock-puppet.
BTW, saying "What I said is true!" does not make it true.
yet all of the hatred for this country comes from LIBERALS, including this site, which cares more about CENSORSHIP than the truth!
You're accusing "teh libs" as the ones who spew all the hatred, that's basically doing exactly what you accuse them of doing yourself, you've made a partisan discriminatory statement while choosing to remain blind to the fact that the right and especially FOX, engages in all the things that libs actually accuse them of (and that you're accusing them of accusing).
Do these things happen on both sides of the political spectrum? Hell yes. Does Fox misinform and skew their reporting? Based on the evidence that can easily be found, yes.
Truth isn't truth because of what people say or believe. It is truth because it is truth. In order to show that what you say is true, well, you simply have to show how ALL the hatred comes from the left, and NONE come from the right, including right-leaning news channels like FOX.
Not entirely a difficult endeavor for you I'd imagine.
We of the left are the targets of constant lies and mistruths as well as generalised and particular calumnies. When we dare to refute these falsities the Right cries foul.
How pathetic!
If MMFA were in the habit of censorship (like OH SO MANY conservative sites) then you and your buddy, Hurryduck would have your stupidty swiftly removed from these boards.
I like how the reality (that your post is still here) flies in the face of your imagnary world in which conservative views are crushed under the weight of the liberal media monolith.
Also, Nice name BoulderHippy - new name, same brand of stupid.
This is what is known as an assertion without evidence.
By what measure do you determine that, MiddleAmerica? By that measure, how do the countries stack up? i.e., which country is #2? Who's #3? How close to the US paragon model are they?
Yeah, like YOU
No one in the print media will say it lest they be accused of sour grapes, but what's really driving the tabloid garbage turn that the media has taken is television. I blame local news -- which is, for the most part, completely worthless -- for the decline of our politics. They never hold politicians accountable for anything other than meaningless sex scandals, and their most important stories range from celebrity gossip to car accidents, fires, and violent crime. So tired of hearing their stupid retort that real news (which they only cover in soundbites) would lose ratings. Getting ratings is not your job! Reporting the news is! (And while you're at it, get over the "both sides matter" nonsense. All that matters is the facts.)
It's a real-life soap, or, more to the point, a reality show. A "human interest story," to use the standard press euphemism. It can hook and emotionally involve lots of people, which means ratings and money, but it's of absolutely no consequence to anyone (except those directly involved), no matter what the outcome. So saturation coverage steps on no toes, it's making no one with money and power angry, it's getting ratings from those who find soaps and reality shows such a hoot, and it costs basically nothing to produce.
---
Left Hook!
http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/
In my opinion, Casey Anthony did not kill her daughter -- but she knows what happened.
Unfortunately, this case is closed unless new evidence pops-up.
Only a mistrial or a case originally dismissed due to lack of evidence can there be a new trial.
Please note, I said, it's closed as to Casey Anthony.
Therefore if new over whelming evidence was found, or any type of corruption among the jurors, judge etc. came to light the State could appeal to a higher court for a new trial. I know it is rare to be granted, but has happened. I'm to lazy to look up the cases for example.
Double Jeopardy prevents the state from trying you twice for the same crime, however the Federal Government can charge you and try you for the same offense you had previously been tried for in state court.
The courts have decided that since the state and federal governments are separate sovereigns and therefore successive prosecutions based on the same underlying conduct do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, if the prosecutions are brought by separate sovereigns.
The Double Jeopardy Clause bars successive prosecutions only when the previously concluded and subsequently charged offenses fail the 'same element' test.
BTW England, Ireland, and Wales have null-ed the Double Jeopardy law.
Under English Law, post 2003, where there is new and compelling evidence, certain very serious crimes may be retried where there is the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Court of Appeal has agreed to quash the original conviction. Certainly a series of high bars.
Whilst the rule has been substantially modified it is far from being nullified.
English law applies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I understood it to have been modified in 2003 but since nullified. Like I said you could be right and they are vacationing in Spain or I would email them and ask. Do you live in the UK?
Double Jeopardy Law ushered out.
My training is in Australian law and we are currently debating the matter here. The major impetus comes from the development of DNA technology which has created evidence where previously it, in effect, did not exist and that is the functioning ground upon which an aquittal could be quashed.
Apart from that exception, the principle of double jeopardy remains intact. Not only to protect citizens from the harassment of repeated prosecutions for the same offence (a particularly offensive form of "deep pocketing") but also to discourage over-zealous prosecutors from taking a punt on weak cases - a very expensive habit bearing in mind the cost of conducting a trial. It should be remembered that the most important responsibility of a DPP or DA is to decide which matters to prosecute and primary among the criteria is the prospect of success. Without the brake of double jeopardy I could see prosecutors caving to public pressure and going to trial with very weak cases indeed.
There are three links in my post. But probably all indulge in a little hyperbole. There should be less hyperbole in these links.
Library House of Commons updated 1/27/2009. New provisions were introduced in 2003 and came into force in April 2005.
Scottish Law Commission promoting law reform. There are several interesting links within this link.
I appreciate your input. Thanks for the info. BTW nulled and null-ed are used here, re: your (sic).
Just sayin'.
From what I've learned since then, I was better off not knowing.
Wingnuts love to talk about their moral superiority to us Godless Liberals. And they love to condemn us for coddling criminals, but here is a man who knows he will die in prison, demanding that he be exonerated for a crime he did not commit. There is great dignity and morality in this. The man may be a career criminal, but he is not without a conscience or moral judgement.
For my part, as a Catholic, I oppose the Death Penalty. I also oppose abortion and active euthanasia. I do not advocate for the repeal of abortion laws, but I would not chose abortion or recommend it to anyone else. And I would not chose assisted suicide, either.
How dare you have an enlightened view on these matters. I am a Christian and oppose abortion and the death penalty. I do not, however wish to impose my moral and religiosu views on others through laws. You cannot convert a man to Christ through the imposition of the law of man.
Exactly. No woman, no matter how vapid, amoral, even immoral, skips off to an abortion clinic like she's on a lark or shoe shopping. By the time she gets to the clinic door, it's too late. It's much better to make education and contraceptives available before people go off to have sex. I know, that darned enlightened thinking again.
But since this trial and case was turned into the trial of the century by the same talking heads that are so outraged by her being found no guilty, she received celebrity justice, not regular justice.
She got a month long trial with people bringing up every irrelevant bit of smoke they could throw in the jury's face. They got a jury that was unable to avoid serving on a month long case instead of a jury of regular people.
Without all this publicity she would have been found guilty in a heartbeat. Thank you Nancy Grace.
It is, in the long scheme of things, now irrelevant as to whether she is guilty or not. She can not be tried again, per the US constitution. The legal requirements are completed and finalized.
But, these people, like Nancy Grace, who stir up such feelings are really obstructing justice.
Now, the woman was found guilty of false statements so that part is fact. I, unfortunately, cannot be 100% sure that she killed the child but she knows what happened I guarantee it and it is a terrible waste of a young innocent girls life that no one is being punished for it.
This isn't something I'm claiming should have been considered by the jury, but it's just too late to cry "accident" three years later. It's perfectly reasonable to think the same person who put the public and her family through unnecessary agony, the same person who led police to her "workplace" until she physically could not carry the lie any further, that they would kill their own daughter for her own freedom or for spite, or whatever twisted reason you can imagine. The level of shameless cruelty is downright sociopathic.
So what, you want Anthony punished for it because *someone* should be? That is the most disgusting thing I've heard today. Never mind that she was acquitted. Never mind that the prosecution weren't able to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Never mind that we shouldn't be able to punish someone just because we feel like it. You want her punished just to satisfy your need for revenge.
That's disgusting.
I know the courts say acquitted but I think the courts are wrong.Most child murders are committed by family members, look it up Your text to link here...
I stand by my opinion
Nancy Grace says she did. So what is her evidence - just accusations.
Benjamin Franklin in his letter to Benjamin Vaughan (14th March 1785) wrote that it was better that one hundred guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer. This is a maxim that has resonated throughout the civilised world from at least Biblical times and illustrates the presumption of innocence as a cornerstone of justice.
The U.S. obsession with scapegoating makes a mockery of all its sermonising about "rights" and "freedom" and "the rule of law".
If a person is to be deprived of his or her liberty then it is imperative that their guilt be established beyond reasonable doubt according to law if the prosecution has failed to do so then that is that. One problem lies in the rush to prosecute another, peculiar to the U.S. lies in the nature of the chief prosecuter's office as being elective and thus subject to popular demands for "vengeance" and pressure to prosecute when the evidence doesn't warrant it.
If you are suggesting that with all that is going on that affects so many Americans the media has their priorities wrong, I would agree and add Media Matters for America into that category as well.
While this weak corporate tool President is in the process of selling the New Deal down the toilet to appease the Republicans and Wall Street and the MAINSTREAM MEDIA that facilitates it all, what dominates the front page of MMFA?
Fox News, Right Wing Blogs, and Ruppert Murdoch.
Take your own advice.
John
I won't go into the sexual implications of a young woman begging for mercy.
I won't go into the sexual implications of a young woman begging for mercy.
Read similar shooting spree stories like jared loughner who could only manage 6 kills even though they were lined up against a wall. Something doesn't add up but everyone is happy because we have a conviction. If your so stressed about innocent people being convicted, do yourself a favour and have a read.Your text to link here...
There are certain cases this post would apply to, certainly. It doesn't work very well here.
If you make enough mistakes, you end up in a bad place. That's life. Liberals like myself accept this, but want to place some sort of lower limit on the consequences. Welfare, government housing, food stamps, etc. Not a thrilling lifestyle, but humane at least. We give people a chance to fix themselves, because that's the moral thing to do. In many cases, nobody else has any responsibility there. I'm an example of this. I made many mistakes. 37-year old men don't typically join the Army because they've made stellar life choices. I have very little money. And that's my fault. I accept the bad place, financially and vocationally speaking, that I am in.
The same principle applies to Casey Anthony. For those who are actually familiar with the case, it's clear this woman made mistakes. Not telling anyone about the "accidental" death. Making up a completely ludicrous story about a kidnapping, with an actual name of a kidnapper. Partying. Stealing money. Doing web searches that are impossible to explain the purpose of. Putting the body in the trunk of her car for a couple of weeks. Lying, lying, and more lying. Passing up opportunity after opportunity to end everyone's suspense and suffering and just say "it was an accident". Ultimately, doing everything possible to delay the discovery of her daughter's corpse. In the trial, making wild accusations of parental abuse and then failing to back them up. Not testifying, when one's own word is the only evidence of an accidental death and of the mitigating circumstances of abuse.
Given the idea that the presence of a body in her trunk was well-established for nearly three years and she first claimed "accident" at the beginning of a trial, even the most sympathetic person here has to admit there are an alarming amount of mistakes that were made. And along the lines of what I've said before, if you're going to do everything possible to make people think that you killed your daughter, then what basis are we supposed to have to disbelieve that notion? And why on Earth should anyone feel guilty for accepting the appearance that she did so much to establish? The last-minute claims of "accident" and abuse only come off as grudging acceptance that the outrageous lies she had been clinging desperately to for so long were not going to hold up to judicial scrutiny, are unrealistic, and completely unsupported.
The relevance of the death penalty goes only so far as the "lower limit" I mentioned earlier. I have some sympathy for the argument that the limit should be life without parole. But that doesn't change the principle that if you make enough mistakes, you get what you deserve. And that clearly means a conviction for murder here.
You can accept all of this and still be a good liberal. I promise. You can support the 6th Amendment, the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", the principle of "reasonable doubt", all of those wonderful things, and still look at this individual case and come to the obvious conclusion that a jury didn't look at all the relevant facts.
You just have to open your eyes a little bit.