So, they had evidence for lesser charges, but still did nothing.
I understand double jeopardy makes a bit of sense -- what I hate is that, in the same trial, someone cannot be put in jeopardy twice for a lesser charge. I mean, you should take them all the way down the justice wash -- innocent until proven guilty, yes, but they should check all forms of guilt, just not the biggest charge one can find.
I think the prosecution was simply rather arrogant, believing there was no way that the jury wouldn't convict.
They forgot about the little detail of "Burden of Proof". Instead they relied on the reverse of the "Benefit of Assumption": They basically claimed she was guilty until proven innocent. The law dosen't work that way.
I mean, you should take them all the way down the justice wash -- innocent until proven guilty, yes, but they should check all forms of guilt, just not the biggest charge one can find.
Yes, but then it's like playing justice roulette...where the ball stops nobody knows!
The prosecution went about it all the wrong way. They charged Casey with solely the worst charge they could, and that charge alone. And what happened when there wasn't enough evidence? A murderer, set free.
I think the prosecution was simply rather arrogant, believing there was no way that the jury wouldn't convict.
I totally agree.
America's law system is good, but comes to loose ends with things like this. She cannot be tried for different charges because it would be for the same crimes (no double jeopardy, granted in the Fifth Amendment).
I couldn't help but simmer a bit when I saw the triumphant face of Casey and her lawyer. Thoughts ran through my head, along the lines of "How could anyone defend her?" and "How could she be so selfish as to worry about her own freedom and self-preservation when she stole so many years of life from an innocent child?" Thinking about it for long enough could make me a bit emotional; about how unfair it seems...
I agree with double jeopardy even in cases such as this, however I am also of the opinion that should the person ever admit to the crime they be arrested, and given the harshest punishment possible for the crime.
There were 7 charges: Premeditated 1st Degree Murder, Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, Aggravated Child Abuse, and 4 counts of False Information.
P1DM: The Prosecution couldn't determine a cause of death and had no evidence that Casey did it, nor did they rule out that someone else couldn't have done it. AMC: Same reason. ACA: The remains were too decomposed to find any evidence. 4FI: She was convicted on those.
Neglect was a seperate charge that was dropped when Caylee was confirmed dead. It could be brought back for her failing to report Caylee missing earlier.
So it's like the current system, except for when one is rich enough to fix the odds.
She wasn't rich or famous. She was a nobody. The only thing that made her known was this case because the media overshowed it.
Well, this is were the trust and judgement of people just like you comes into play. A jury or judge is in charge of sentencing or acquitting the accused. You can expect a non-biased jury with varying opinions to be selected. And by doing so, a (hopefully) unbiased opinion is reached. Sentences are limited to charges and the presentation of evidence to support those charges. If a prosecution does not provide sufficient evidence, the accused cannot be, without a doubt, convicted.
With the bail part, the same trust comes into play. In most cases, would anyone bail a convicted criminal is he or she truly believed that the convict was guilty?
I know there are many loopholes in allowing this direct interaction, but everyone's human. What makes the any jury member's opinion better than any other U.S. citizen? Nothing, except for the fact that he or she was chosen, and not the other citizen. I can only hope that new laws (not overly restrictive) and knowledge can be provided to bring true justice to this case.
America's law system is good, but comes to loose ends with things like this. She cannot be tried for different charges because it would be for the same crimes (no double jeopardy, granted in the Fifth Amendment).
She could actually be tried for charges not similar to those brought against her in the first trial. This means that they could not charge her with manslaughter, but possible child negligence charges could perhaps be allowed in court, however, that charge would carry a very short prison term, or maybe only parole.
There may have been a question of murder but there has never been a question of neglect. I doubt she would only get parole, although things are possible.
How was the jury expected to come into this case neutrally, it was what 2 years before she was even charged?
That is another good point. People have their blood fired up by this "not guilty" verdict, because of news stations like HLN, specifically Nancy Grace. The media hasn't left this case alone, and that just leads to biased people not listening to facts. Honestly, I am surprised that they were able to get a jury together.
@zakyman Yep. Some of the jurors really wanted to lock her up, but were upset that they decided not to let emotions into their verdict. They had to decide based solely on the evidence. There wasn't enough.
