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
.
This is all fine and good, in fact I have a wonderful knowledge of how the judicial system works. However, the jury system is an utter failure. Sure it works most of the time, but when it doesn't work it really doesn't work.
@Palpatine
There's a charge out there called Criminal Negligence Causing Death. If any one had a brain, they'd charge her with this. It wouldn't be double jepardy either. See all they'd have to prove is that here negligent actions AKA not reporting the kid missing for 30days resulted in the child's death, in some way. THAT should be pretty friggen simple.
I think at this point everyone sick of the trial, I hardly think they're going to do this again, it's a massive waste of money, money that could be better spent elsewhere.
look, anybody with half a brain knew it was her who killed the girl. in fact she was a party girl, didn't want to take responsiblity for anything, but that doesn't mean she could just kill her own daughter.
what scared me the most was when they presented the evidence, they showed a video from a security camera that showed her going to get a movie with her boyfriend right after she reported her daughter missing. she had a smile on her face, and that was what scared me the most.
We're a country of innocent until proven guilty, and until you can prove to me without a doubt that she was guilty of 1st Degree murder, please do not make such statements.
We're a country of innocent until proven guilty, and until you can prove to me without a doubt that she was guilty of 1st Degree murder, please do not make such statements.
I agree. Anybody with 'half a brain' doesn't know she killed her girl, because we DONT KNOW if she did. The only way to be 100% sure is if she admits to it, or we have witnesses. And there is neither. So all we have, had actually, was a battle or who could provide the best case.
Here's the official charge for Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child:
"And the Grand Jurors of the County of Orange, duly called, impaneled and sworn to inquire and true presentment make in and for the body of the County of Orange, upon their oaths do present that CASEY MARIE ANTHONY, between the 15th day of June, 2008 and the 16th day of July, 2008, in said County and Satate, did willfully or by culpable negligence, in violation of Florida Statites 782.07(3) and 827.0393), while a caregiver to Caylee Marie Anthony, a child under 18 years of age, fail or omit to provide CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY with the care, supervision and services necessary to maintain CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONYâS physical and metal health, or fail to make a reasonable effort to protect CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY from abuse, neglect or exploitation by another person, and in so doing caused the death of CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY."
So that charge also outlined criminal neglect. It would be double jeopardy.
This is all fine and good, in fact I have a wonderful knowledge of how the judicial system works. However, the jury system is an utter failure. Sure it works most of the time, but when it doesn't work it really doesn't work.
What then, would YOU have the other option be? Juries are useful, because then you peers are deciding your fate, not a judge who has heard dozens of cases just like yours. A jury is important to protect the defendant from perhaps biased opinions from judges. I concede that sometimes, when the prosecutors do a crappy job presenting evidence, then a perhaps guilty person might walk away. But that is no need to say that the jury system is "an utter failure."
I can't believe not 1 jurur thought she was guilty. That's all it would've taken for a hung jury (then there may have been a fairly picked jury the second time around).
I can't believe not 1 jurur thought she was guilty. That's all it would've taken for a hung jury (then there may have been a fairly picked jury the second time around).
Some of them wanted to find her completely guilty, but there wasn't enough evidence presented in court to support the charges. The jurors decided to keep emotions out of their decision and focused on what was presented (that's what they're supposed to do).
I doubt there would be an unbias group if they needed another jury.
A not guilty verdict does not necessarily mean the jurors think that she is not guilty, and many of their comments after the trial reflected that they thought she was guilty but that there was simply insufficient evidence towards her guilt. The only thing that a not guilty verdict means is that her guilt was not proven beyond all reasonable doubt. The majority of the evidence that the prosecution presented was relatively circumstantial, and as such, she was let free. Did they prove she was a horrible mother? Yes: what other kind would not report that her daughter was missing even though she hadn't seen her for a month? Did they prove she was a liar? Definitely: that whole part about Zenaida Gonzalez, the baby-napping nanny, was complete bull****, and she only told about a million different stories about why her car smelled terrible.But did they prove that she was a murderer, beyond all reasonable doubt? No, they did not, hence the not guilty verdict. Such is the nature of the American justice system. And while it has set a few guilty people free, it has also done the same for a few innocent people who have been wrongfully accused. While we're on the topic of the trial, what do you guys think of the amount of publicity that this case is getting? I think it's a bad thing, when trials get this much media attention. It's my belief that not only is it unfair for someone who is potentially innocent to be convicted in the world of public opinion by the media, sometimes before their trial even starts. And in a case like this where people are shocked and enraged at the crime, and even more so at the not guilty verdict, it could be potentially very dangerous for the jurors if the public is watching and if they find out their identities(see this for an example). I think that even though this sort of thing is covered in the First Amendment(freedom of the press), it's irresponsible for the reporters, talk show hosts, etc(in general, people that the public listens to and believes) to make a snap judgment about the case without knowing all the facts, and share that judgment with the public. Nancy Grace, I'm looking at you. This trial has been a good example of fair trial vs free press. Also, I thought these were pretty funny.
I have to agree, I'm not one to deny freedom of the press, however when your reporting infringes on the ability of another person to live their life, it has to stop.
My favorite was #6. It's kind of funny that the only way the guy on #10 gets noticed is on forums like this.
I have to agree, I'm not one to deny freedom of the press, however when your reporting infringes on the ability of another person to live their life, it has to stop.
