Thread: Stunning outcome in Casey Anthony trial: Not guilty of Murder and Child Abuse

Originally Posted by unclassifiable

A lot more innocent people will be wrongfully locked up or executed if the Constitution is changed, or reinterpreted, to permit conviction based on mere probable guilt. Scott Petersen is probably guilty, but the only physical evidence presented was a piece of hair. In the current case, the jury understood what "reasonable doubt" means, and in the Petersen case, apparently they did not (or let their emotions sway them due to his cheating and the wife's pregnancy).

Well, if we throw out common sense when deciding guilt or innocense based on evidence and the actions of the accused, a lot of guilty people will not be convicted. I think it is horrifying that Casey Anthony was not convicted. How is it justice when a child ends up dead while in the care of it's mother who is not able to give a believeable explanation of how the child died?

Originally Posted by Redv

Well, if we throw out common sense when deciding guilt or innocense based on evidence and the actions of the accused, a lot of guilty people will not be convicted. I think it is horrifying that Casey Anthony was not convicted. How is it justice when a child ends up dead while in the care of it's mother who is not able to give a believeable explanation of how the child died?

But a lot of innocent people might be wrongfully convicted. Which is best? To wrongfully convict X percent of innocent persons and not having any criminals on the loose? Or be sure that those in prisons are 100% guilty, even though it might mean that some catch a break?

I support the second option. Easy enough to support the first one, just up until you or someone close to you is behind bars for something you did not commit.

Originally Posted by unclassifiable

WTF are you talking about? There is a fuckload of physical evidence demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ murdered two people.

There's no physical evidence that the death that this thread is about is even due to a murder.

I meant that both were judged criminally not guilty, by a jury of their peers.

Originally Posted by Redv

Well, if we throw out common sense when deciding guilt or innocense based on evidence and the actions of the accused, a lot of guilty people will not be convicted. I think it is horrifying that Casey Anthony was not convicted. How is it justice when a child ends up dead while in the care of it's mother who is not able to give a believeable explanation of how the child died?

If you think you know better than the jury then why support the jury system? Personally, I think it's absurd to expect justice from 12 random people off the street and think we should use a panel of 3 judges, like the French, but probably for the opposite reason you do. Look at all the replies on this board. Everyone is SOOO disappointed that this woman was found NOT to have done this terrible thing.

People LIKE to hurt others. The Germans even have a word for it, Schadenfreude, the pleasure we feel at other's misfortune. They don't even need a reason for it, really, but give them one and the lynch mobs form on the left. That's why I argue tirelessly that people acquited are almost certainly REALLY not guilty, despite what public opinion says. Public opinion, and most juries, would hang people for running stop signs.

Most people would support the justice system I once saw in a SF story. It claimed to be able to read minds and had hidden canisters of poison attached to covert mental monitors everywhere. If they detected illegal plans they went off and instantly killed the perpetrator. Actually, there was no mind reading device, they just went off at random and killed some poor passerby, but everyone was VERY careful not to ever even THINK of doing something illegal.

Originally Posted by Redv

Well, if we throw out common sense when deciding guilt or innocense based on evidence and the actions of the accused, a lot of guilty people will not be convicted. I think it is horrifying that Casey Anthony was not convicted. How is it justice when a child ends up dead while in the care of it's mother who is not able to give a believeable explanation of how the child died?

Put your money where your mouth is and declare that you have no problem with an immensely increased chance of being wrongfully convicted just so that your thirst for blood, and that of others, is satisfied more often than it is with the status quo.

Casey who? My wife told me in passing yesterday "Casey Anthony was found not guilty". I serisously didn't know who she was talking about. "That chick who killed her daughter". "Oh yeah, her." Whatever. I haven't read any of this thread, but I just feel like ranting a bit.

I think I completely tuned out this whole Casey Anthony trial at some point, because.. who the fuck is she? Who cares? (well, a shitload of people, apparently) I mean, it's terribly sad that her daughter died, but shit, kids die every day. Some of them die horrible deaths at the hands of abusers. What made this story so special? I don't get it.

What really turned my stomach a few weeks ago was some news coverage I saw outside the courtroom. People were lining up to get in and watch the "show". They were all running to get in line or something. The news was interviewing a few random people, and these assholes were SMILING. All excited and giddy over the prospect of witnessing the trial in person. There were similar reactions when interviewing random people who have been watching the trial on TV. These worthless pieces of shit where smiling at the cameras, happy to be given the chance to get on TV. People make me sick. Get a fucking life, assholes.

A little girl died, you fucktards! My appologies to those of you who may be discussing the legalities of the trial or whatever, but this thread disgusts me. [/rant]

Not stunned. The prosecution over-reached in it's elaborate and ridiculous case and introduced reasonable doubt.

Thread moved to appropriate forum.

We know a lot more about this case than we do about the kids that keep getting killed overseas in our name.

Originally Posted by John Drake

I meant that both were judged criminally not guilty, by a jury of their peers.



If you think you know better than the jury then why support the jury system? Personally, I think it's absurd to expect justice from 12 random people off the street and think we should use a panel of 3 judges, like the French, but probably for the opposite reason you do. Look at all the replies on this board. Everyone is SOOO disappointed that this woman was found NOT to have done this terrible thing.

People LIKE to hurt others. The Germans even have a word for it, Schadenfreude, the pleasure we feel at other's misfortune. They don't even need a reason for it, really, but give them one and the lynch mobs form on the left. That's why I argue tirelessly that people acquited are almost certainly REALLY not guilty, despite what public opinion says. Public opinion, and most juries, would hang people for running stop signs.

Most people would support the justice system I once saw in a SF story. It claimed to be able to read minds and had hidden canisters of poison attached to covert mental monitors everywhere. If they detected illegal plans they went off and instantly killed the perpetrator. Actually, there was no mind reading device, they just went off at random and killed some poor passerby, but everyone was VERY careful not to ever even THINK of doing something illegal.

First of all, a not guilty verdict is not an indication that the accused is innocent. It means that the state did not offer enough evidence to prove that the accused committed the crime. Casey Anthony could very well have killed her daughter, (and I belive that she did) but because the remains were decomposed by the time they were found, there was no way to determine what means were used to cause the death. This is an important component of the charge to the jury. They had to have evidence of how the death occurred and the prosecutors' theory of how it happened wasn't backed up with sufficient physical evidence.

Originally Posted by Maddox

But a lot of innocent people might be wrongfully convicted. Which is best? To wrongfully convict X percent of innocent persons and not having any criminals on the loose? Or be sure that those in prisons are 100% guilty, even though it might mean that some catch a break?

I support the second option. Easy enough to support the first one, just up until you or someone close to you is behind bars for something you did not commit.

In this case, it seems that this defendant has gotten away with murder. That happens in our system and it is a lot more tolerable than having an innocent person wrongly convicted. I would never suggest that the law should allow innocent people to be imprisoned. That idea is abhorent to me.

Originally Posted by Jefe

Casey who? My wife told me in passing yesterday "Casey Anthony was found not guilty". I serisously didn't know who she was talking about. "That chick who killed her daughter". "Oh yeah, her." Whatever. I haven't read any of this thread, but I just feel like ranting a bit.

I think I completely tuned out this whole Casey Anthony trial at some point, because.. who the fuck is she? Who cares? (well, a shitload of people, apparently) I mean, it's terribly sad that her daughter died, but shit, kids die every day. Some of them die horrible deaths at the hands of abusers. What made this story so special? I don't get it.

What really turned my stomach a few weeks ago was some news coverage I saw outside the courtroom. People were lining up to get in and watch the "show". They were all running to get in line or something. The news was interviewing a few random people, and these assholes were SMILING. All excited and giddy over the prospect of witnessing the trial in person. There were similar reactions when interviewing random people who have been watching the trial on TV. These worthless pieces of shit where smiling at the cameras, happy to be given the chance to get on TV. People make me sick. Get a fucking life, assholes.

A little girl died, you fucktards! My appologies to those of you who may be discussing the legalities of the trial or whatever, but this thread disgusts me. [/rant]

The reason people were fascinated by this case is because of the incredible lies Casey Anthony told the police about what happened to her then "missing" daughter.

Originally Posted by Redv

The reason people were fascinated by this case is because of the incredible lies Casey Anthony told the police about what happened to her then "missing" daughter.

Oh, I see. Is that why people on TV were so excited and happy about the trial? Because of the incredible lies she told? Criminals and murderers lie to the police every day.

What I saw went beyond fascination, into the realm of morbid sickness. Barely anyone gives a shit that a little girl died.

Now I remember a particular interview - a woman was talking about how she's been following the trial every day on Court TV, and how she records each episode... like this was some kind of reality TV show. And she was smiling the whole time. How wonderfully entertaining. Excuse me while I go puke up my breakfast.