PDA

View Full Version : Better 10 guilty men go free...


JonIrenicus
07-05-2011, 10:45 PM
than one innocent man (or woman) punished.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8619409/Casey-Anthony-cleared-of-murdering-two-year-old-daughter.html



or so the saying goes.

sugarkang
07-05-2011, 11:38 PM
I'm not sure if you're earnest about that old saying, but I certainly still believe in it.

From the article:

"Earlier in the trial, medics told the court that it remained unknown precisely how Caylee died – a fact that may have proved fatal to the prosecution's case against her."

All of the circumstantial evidence in the world doesn't tell you anything. There are plenty of reasons someone might smile for pictures even if they feel tortured internally. There are plenty of times when I forced myself to have a good time in order to not selfishly ruin everyone else's time. Convicting someone on this kind of evidence is the same kind of logic as, "All black people are criminals. He's guilty because he's black."

Did Casey kill her daughter? Probably. But if the medics couldn't tell me how Caylee died and if I were a juror, I wouldn't press the red button, either. Thank God, we don't convict on hunches.

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/7135/tumblrlnvkappdqo1qcjm7x.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/834/tumblrlnvkappdqo1qcjm7x.jpg/)

JonIrenicus
07-06-2011, 12:17 AM
It was probably wrong to go for the death penalty in this case without the smoking guns, and I can buy the jury not seeing enough hard evidence to convict.

What I don't get is the people spouting crap about "justice" being done like some commentators and the defense attorneys...


uh, no, a 2 year old girl was murdered and dumped in a swamp, justice would be finding out who did that and convicting them, that would be justice. Whether the mother did it or not, a murderer walks scott free. And in this case, there is a good chance it was the mother.

Don Zeko
07-06-2011, 12:30 AM
It was probably wrong to go for the death penalty in this case without the smoking guns, and I can buy the jury not seeing enough hard evidence to convict.

What I don't get is the people spouting crap about "justice" being done like some commentators and the defense attorneys...


uh, no, a 2 year old girl was murdered and dumped in a swamp, justice would be finding out who did that and convicting them, that would be justice. Whether the mother did it or not, a murderer walks scott free. And in this case, there is a good chance it was the mother.

I agree, but that cuts both ways. Convicting the wrong person also lets the guilty walk free.

sugarkang
07-06-2011, 12:31 AM
Right.

They shouldn't say that justice was done. They don't know.

The problem is that there are contrary interests. Criminal law is based on principles of governance for society at large and not based on individual justice. So, because we have to make rules that apply for everyone, we have to apply them equally. That means some results aren't going to be good. We don't manipulate the law to get the results we want. Oh wait. Our President does!

For society at large, it was a win.
For Caylee, not so much.

The other thing to consider is whether or not Casey is likely to kill again. Probably not. So, if you had to choose, letting her walk is probably better. People are going to spit in her face for the rest of her life, though. She's more famous than OJ and she doesn't have a lot of money. Prison or not, she will pay.

graz
07-06-2011, 12:38 AM
What I don't get is the people spouting crap about "justice" being done like some commentators and the defense attorneys...

You mean like this? (http://www.vanityfair.com/online/wolcott/2011/07/the-casey-anthony-verdict.html)
Because the crap spouting is a commentary on the likes of cable news networks and their shadow justice system that reached a different verdict. They're also indicting you for appropriating the loss of the life of that young girl that you didn't, don't and won't know. And the defense attorney is implicating you again for assuming the guilt of the mother without knowing the details of the case. Get it?

chiwhisoxx
07-06-2011, 01:03 AM
I'm not sure if you're earnest about that old saying, but I certainly still believe in it.

From the article:


All of the circumstantial evidence in the world doesn't tell you anything. There are plenty of reasons someone might smile for pictures even if they feel tortured internally. There are plenty of times when I forced myself to have a good time in order to not selfishly ruin everyone else's time. Convicting someone on this kind of evidence is the same kind of logic as, "All black people are criminals. He's guilty because he's black."

Did Casey kill her daughter? Probably. But if the medics couldn't tell me how Caylee died and if I were a juror, I wouldn't press the red button, either. Thank God, we don't convict on hunches.


um yes it does. you can be glad we "don't convict on hunches", and sentencing someone to death without any physical evidence is certainly difficult. but let's not pretend like she didn't do it.

sugarkang
07-06-2011, 01:08 AM
um yes it does. you can be glad we "don't convict on hunches", and sentencing someone to death without any physical evidence is certainly difficult. but let's not pretend like she didn't do it.

You probably skimmed over this.

Did Casey kill her daughter? Probably. But if the medics couldn't tell me how Caylee died and if I were a juror, I wouldn't press the red button, either.

miceelf
07-06-2011, 06:33 AM
Meh. It was one of literally thousands of murder cases that gets prosecuted every year. Why it got the media attention it got, and why people felt compelled to follow it and to form really strong opinions about it, given its lack of bearing on anyone's lives but the principles', is beyond me.

At least with the OJ case, the person was semi-famous before the incident in question. Here, it's really not clear.

Put me down as NOT voting to have Nancy Grace on b'heads any time soon.

sugarkang
07-06-2011, 07:27 AM
Meh. It was one of literally thousands of murder cases that gets prosecuted every year. Why it got the media attention it got, and why people felt compelled to follow it and to form really strong opinions about it, given its lack of bearing on anyone's lives but the principles', is beyond me.


You know what's cool, though? Not a single board member or a single BHTV guest has mentioned anything about this before the actual verdict. I think that puts us into a special category of high brow.

The pâté is simply divine!

miceelf
07-06-2011, 08:17 AM
You know what's cool, though? Not a single board member or a single BHTV guest has mentioned anything about this before the actual verdict. I think that puts us into a special category of high brow.

The pâté is simply divine!

Yeah, I agree with you here.

thouartgob
07-06-2011, 10:02 AM
Put me down as NOT voting to have Nancy Grace on b'heads any time soon.

The most shocking thing about the verdict was that Nancy's skull remained intact after the verdict. She is the very personification of OUTRAGE and I was sure that after all of this time and effort on her part there would be nothing on earth that could stop her OUTRAGE from exploding outward in a semi-hemispherical shroud of cranial shrapnel, possibly injuring others on the set.

One would think this travesty would compel her to say "Good Day" to the good people at HLN and move on since what could properly OUT-OUTRAGE her more. Well I feel she will keep trying to find another horror to rail against on basic cable, if not for herself ... for Caylee.

I don't know much about the case itself but did notice that it kept people attention far more than one would have thought and I await the pre-digested movie on the ins-and-outs on Netflix Instant to catch up. At least this verdict gives the american people some sense of the senselessness of how children's lives are thrown away, without any sort of "justice" in other parts of the world.

I would love to see Nancy Grace's OUTRAGE expended on a death of a child that doesn't belong to a reasonably profitable demographic.

stephanie
07-06-2011, 11:53 AM
Meh. It was one of literally thousands of murder cases that gets prosecuted every year. Why it got the media attention it got, and why people felt compelled to follow it and to form really strong opinions about it, given its lack of bearing on anyone's lives but the principles', is beyond me.

At least with the OJ case, the person was semi-famous before the incident in question. Here, it's really not clear.

Put me down as NOT voting to have Nancy Grace on b'heads any time soon.

I totally agree with this, and I'm happy to say that I have insufficient knowledge to know whether justice was done or whether Anthony murdered her daughter. As I regularly avoid the type of media that focuses on this kind of thing, avoiding the story wasn't difficult, although I would have made the effort if it were.

Those question, whether justice was done and whether we think a guilty person went free are, however, at least potentially two separate questions -- justice is done when someone is given a fair trial and justice is not done when they are not, even if the result of the latter is a conviction. Similarly, we don't generally say "justice was done" when someone is killed by a vigilante, even if we think that person was guilty. Part of why this is, is that we don't "know" that someone did it, generally. We may think someone did, but it's easy enough to be wrong. There are numerous examples with the men on death row who have been exonerated of their lawyers (or others) discovering exonerating evidence while raising their rights, but believing that they likely were guilty.

With regard to justice, though, the irony here is that I think this kind of high publicity tends to make convictions harder. Certainly harder than if Anthony had gotten the type of attention and representation that the ordinary criminal defendant gets. So Nancy Grace et al. played a role in Anthony getting off, I'd bet. But I'm cynical about the reason for the focus on it, anyway, and about Nancy Grace, period, so I doubt that really bothers them.

JonIrenicus
07-06-2011, 03:27 PM
Meh. It was one of literally thousands of murder cases that gets prosecuted every year. Why it got the media attention it got, and why people felt compelled to follow it and to form really strong opinions about it, given its lack of bearing on anyone's lives but the principles', is beyond me.

At least with the OJ case, the person was semi-famous before the incident in question. Here, it's really not clear.

Put me down as NOT voting to have Nancy Grace on b'heads any time soon.

I wasn't really aware of the case at all until the verdict, then a flood of reports came out chronicling the back story.

JonIrenicus
07-08-2011, 04:10 AM
http://www.tmz.com/2011/07/06/tmz-live-casey-anthony-not-guilty-verdict-nancy-grace-joan-rivers-susan-moss-phone-interview/

sugarkang
07-08-2011, 04:18 AM
http://www.tmz.com/2011/07/06/tmz-live-casey-anthony-not-guilty-verdict-nancy-grace-joan-rivers-susan-moss-phone-interview/

TMZ is a bit too high brow. Can you summarize?

JonIrenicus
07-08-2011, 04:38 AM
TMZ is a bit too high brow. Can you summarize?

if you want a brief take, just skip to the joan rivers segment, the time markers are to the right of the video.


edit:

oh, and there is an interesting twitter question that begins around 43m 35s

sugarkang
07-08-2011, 04:53 AM
if you want a brief take, just skip to the joan rivers segment, the time markers are to the right of the video.


edit:

oh, and there is an interesting twitter question that begins around 43m 35s

Joan Rivers, haha. What the fuck is our world when TMZ becomes the voice of reason and network TV is an outrage generating machine?

kezboard
07-08-2011, 08:06 AM
Why it got the media attention it got, and why people felt compelled to follow it and to form really strong opinions about it, given its lack of bearing on anyone's lives but the principles', is beyond me.


Ooh! Ooh! Me! Me! It gives people a chance to express how very strongly they disapprove of loose women, and reinforces ideas of how good mothers should behave -- for example, if her child goes missing, she should under no account go shopping or to a bar; instead, she should presumably stay home and cry about it to her mother.

Wonderment
07-08-2011, 05:05 PM
Ooh! Ooh! Me! Me! It gives people a chance to express how very strongly they disapprove of loose women, and reinforces ideas of how good mothers should behave -- for example, if her child goes missing, she should under no account go shopping or to a bar; instead, she should presumably stay home and cry about it to her mother.


What makes the jury so admirable in this case is that they didn't buy into the "slut" stereotype, even though the prosecution closed with giant photographs of the accused's tattoo, which they disapproved of, and her club dance photo (ditto).

The prosecution simply didn't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. There was no way to connect the dots with any degree of certainty.

Also, it was impossible to discern when key witnesses were lying and when they were telling the truth.

To top it off, the forensic "science" was all over the map, and the case was ridiculously overcharged as Murder 1 with death penalty.

Bottom line: It's clear the woman was involved in the homicide or accidental death of her daughter, but we don't know how or why. She probably did hide the body in her car trunk and later dump the corpse in the woods, but that doesn't tell us anything about the circumstances of the death.

sugarkang
07-08-2011, 08:19 PM
What makes the jury so admirable in this case is that they didn't buy into the "slut" stereotype, even though the prosecution closed with giant photographs of the accused's tattoo, which they disapproved of, and her club dance photo (ditto).

The jury doesn't see what we see, either. I mean we get this barrage of feedback from the public, talkingheads, theories, outrage. The jury's shielded from all that. I imagine that deliberations were short because they went, "Okay, we know she's a slut and a horrible mother. What's the theory of death?" Uhhh, no theory; not guilty.

It could have just as easily been her father that killed Caylee. That would mean she would literally be paying for the sins of the father. Oh well. 4 years or something? Good enough.

The thing that really makes me mad, more than anything, is when these douchebags try to use the publicity to sell books. Like, "If I Did It..."