- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Parenting
help me understand.
I know Im not one for patriotism- Im not trying to start shiit for once- I SWEAR.
but with the Casey Anthony court tragedy fresh in the news- I keep hearing people comment that, "well- it's the best system in the world,"
1. that seems pretty arrogant,
2. do other countries also think theirs is the best? how is this rated/ determined?
isit the best because "america kicks ass" or it is the best like our education system? or is it literally based on fact- the best?
3. if the actual jurors on this case are coming out and saying that they don't think she's innocent per se- they just couldn't say there wasn't doubt seems fvcked up to me.
I will never be convinced that she was not responsible 100% for what happened to that girl, whether it was accidntal in the beginning or not.
now she gets another chance (many more chances.)
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
This discussion has been closed.
Re: help me understand.
::::backs slowly out of post:::::
Wait. Will someone answer me this?
IF, if, IF she would ever happen to confess to it, would she be able to be tried for it? Or is it that whole double jeopardy thing?
:::now backing out of post:::
r9- SHE wouldnt!! so I guess they mean best system in the world for criminals.
Maybe the experts will chime in, bit I do believe she could walk out on Wednesday and confess to everything and they wouldn't be able to prosecute for any of those charges again.
I think the jurors took the whole "reasonable doubt " thing too far and were afraid to connect the dots. Not everything is going to come wrapped up and perfectly presented to you.
Christmas 2011
I don't know if ours is best. I don't know if other countries think theirs is best. I do know that I would not want to live in a country where people can be convicted without evidence. And if that means that sometimes guilty people free, in my opinion, that's a better scenario than innocent people being locked up or put to death. No system is going to be perfect, and I'd rather live in a country that errs on the side of assuming that people are not guilty until they are proven to be so by the evidence. From what I've been hearing, the jurors are saying that there just wasn't evidence to prove the case. That the prosecutors didn't do their job. I don't put the blame for that on the entire court system. Unfortunately there are a whole lot of cases out there where hard evidence is just plain difficult to obtain. This time it just happened to be a very high profile case.
the prosecution fvcked up, and badly. But (and I'm not queen of patriotism myself), I don't think that can make the whole system worthy of condemnation. It's disgusting that she got away with it, absolutely disgusting. But honestly I'd rather have a case like this go wrong & have a murderer go unpunished than have our system assume guilt & punish (or put to death) an innocent person.
It sucks, but I don't think any system is "perfect," and I do think our system is probably broken in many ways, but in theory, I do believe it is better than a whole lot of other countries' systems which assume guilt and punish innocent people rather than go through due process and an honest jury trial. As any prisoner of conscience in China which system they'd rather be accused of a crime under.
ffg- everyone Ive seen speaking on the issue is saying it- talkshow guests- hosts- Joy behar just said it, which surprised me a little...
We need eclaires for the legal part of this, but if I were on trial for anything, I would hope the jurors would pay attention to the facts and not base their judgement on their emotions. I 100% believe she killed her daughter. I have never agreed with our legal system.
The investigators just did not get what they needed to convict her. Period. Everyone should and did do what they were supposed to do, except for the investigators. Sucks, but that's the way it is.
Let's say I'm mad at you and I go to the police and tell them you committed some awful crime. You'd be pretty glad they couldn't convict you without actual proof instead of convicting you just based on me saying you did it, right?
She may be free, but she's not going to have a fabulous life. Jail is her safe place right now. Things are going to get really ugly for her.
This, exactly. I'd never say our system is "the best", but how could you say that about any system that can involve human error?
Annelise 3.22.2007 Norah 10.24.2009 Amelia 8.7.2011
Im not trying to condemn the system over this (I don't think its perfect, of course_
but I am asking literally- why do people keep saying it is the best.
does anyone have an any comparison or anything? or is it the same as when people say the US is the best country in the world (which I assume they're judging based only on competition from 3rd world countries and the middle east.)
I just don't get why people say sihit like that instead of We're a good country, or we have a good system that sometimes fails.
like: IS OUR JUDCIAL SYSTEM THE BEST (not in your opinion.)
I don't think I could ever say we have the best judicial system in the world ... but I'm not familiar with all others. I suppose it's "fair" we even have trials for people rather than just throwing them under the jail (even if they should be there).
Now, I have refused to comment specifically on CASSey Anthony so I will leave it there.
Is there even a way to measure that, though? I would guess not, its purely an opinion. I can't even imagine a way to begin to rate and compare judicial systems, but I'm not exactly statistics guru.
I think people sayit because they believe its the best, not because they know it to be fact or anything.
Annelise 3.22.2007 Norah 10.24.2009 Amelia 8.7.2011
Oh, so true!
In a law class I took, the professor summed up our legal system by saying that it was built on the premise that we'd rather have a guilty person go free than an innocent person be convicted. Obviously it doesn't always work because innocent people do sometimes get convicted, but overall I do agree with this viewpoint (I guess because I assume if I were to ever be accused of a serious crime, it would be a mistake, so I want a system that protects me!). It does anger me that people like Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson get away with murder, but if I were to be accused of a crime I didn't commit, I'd rather be in the US than anywhere else. Are you familiar with the Amanda Knox case in Italy? Or read about Americans arrested in places like Turkey, China or Iran? Those stories always make me appreciate the system we have.
I am curious, though. How would you design the ideal legal system?
abay- obvs, as a radical socialist, I don't have answers that'll make most americans happy.
but:
one thought is that if we can not let go of this jury system we insist on using, it should truly be a jury of our peers.
chosen at random.
NOT picked apart and vetted and stacked by attorneys until an exhausted judge says ENOUGH!
have they seen the case in the media? fine- they are still obligated to listen to evidence and make a decision.
and reasoable doubt...eh...
I think that's too hard to comprhend to a lot of people.
also, maybe if the jurors had been encouraged to ask themselves: Is she innocent? DOES SHE belong in society- to profit off of this without limit?
I think it would be a start.
thank you for asking.
Oh yeah, the jury selection is a joke, and few people truly end up with true peers judging them.
They have to do something to make it less of a financial burden for people to serve on juries. Most people couldn't pay their bills if they had to serve on a month long jury, and obviously there is a huge disruption to their jobs, so we're left with people who don't have jobs (or watch the news).
I served on a jury on a two week trial a few years ago. The guy was accused of robbing several older ladies, and we had to hear and decide on all the cases. It was hard!! There was some compelling evidence that he was guilty, but then there was some credible evidence that it wasn't him, and in the end we couldn't get past that and came back not guilty on all charges. I remember when the verdict was read, the families of the victims were just shocked and openly looking over at us like we were the scum of the earth. Made me wonder what things we weren't allowed to hear (we had to spend a lot of time outside of the courtroom for various proceedings) that maybe would have changed our opinions. I spent hours trying to google the guy (afterward, of course) to see if I could get the whole story, but his first and last names were so common, I couldn't get anything, so matter what combo of search terms I used. That was 2005 and I still think about it and wonder if we did the right thing. I don't envy the Anthony jurors at all.
AMEN!
I also don't think our system is the best but it is better than many others. Hello, do you remember Aruba in the Natalie Holllaway case???
I do believe CSI dectective-ship has raised the anty in the burdon of proof but sometimes, you like when a body lies in a swamp for 5 months their isn't any dna, fingerprints, etc. There just wasn't that type of evidence and I believe that why they found "reasonable doubt" in addition to grandpa's suicide letter and the many, many lies that the family has told. Its hard for me to sort through all the lies.
I do believe she got off easy. I know she knows more than what she has told police and I think its very sad that she will not comply in the investigation to find the person that killed her daughter (if it wasn't her, yeah right!!)
From what I've been understanding, I think it would probably be double jeopardy. Unless some prosecuter could find what she said to be completely different than what she was tried for already. We can only hope that can/will happen.
Prosecution in the US cannot appeal? Correct?
In Canada, the prosecution can appeal, just like the defense. IMO, giving the state only one shot to make their case while the defense can appeal more than once seems flawed. Not balanced, which is contrary to the image of justice that is used in the US.
Innocent people do get locked up, innocent people do get put to death in the US. This is a fact.
As long as there is crime, there will be imperfect justice.
I keep hearing some quote about it being better to let 1000 murders go free than to wrongfully convict 1 innocent person. I think that's the basis of reasonable doubt. If there's ANY chance she could be innocent, we have to assume that she is. Although, there enough cases of people being wrongfully convicted (some even sentenced to the death penalty), that it doesn't seem our court system is infallible.
I think that in some countries, the accused is considered guilty until proven innocent. Look at the Amanda Knox case. I don't see how she was found guilty and Casey Anthony found not guilty.
Charlotte Ella 07.16.10
Emmeline Grace 03.27.13
I agree with those statements 100%.
Yes, this.
From the parts I heard of the trial, I thought the prosecution did a good job. There were key witnesses on both sides that had opposing views. One said the trunk smelled liked death. One said it smelled like garbage. One said there was no evidence of human decomposition in the trunk; the other said there was. It comes down to which expert you believe.
Charlotte Ella 07.16.10
Emmeline Grace 03.27.13
I guess I feel like...
it is VERY rare for someone ENTIRELY innocent to be put to trial by jury.
innocent people are not just pulled off the street willy nilly and accused of crimes for which they had no involvement. (although there are cases of this happening-just very rarely.)
I think at most- the typical problem is people who are not ENTIRELY guilty of what they're accused of ending up on trial- they are involved, they are bad, but maybe they didn't do it EXACTLY how they're being accused of having done it.
I think rather than focus on the one innocent person being kept from incarceration, we need to focus on what is best for society- and that is NOT to release 100 murderers into society due to conceivable doubt- on the off chance that by some kind of magic- they are even a little bit innocent.
and I agree- the prosecution NEEDS to be able to appeal- it is essential.
and the jury system needs reworked.
and the lawyers need to have less liberties with their clients image
and maybe all trials SHOULD be public.
and the deuling experts thing is a little off putting...
idk. I just am not impressed.
you guys, this has been a good discussion!
I completely agree with this. People serving on a jury are not going to have a slam dunk case every time. It takes a lot of common sense and the ability to rationalize information. Not everyone has the ability for critical thinking.
I also question the saying "America has the best judicial system in the world". According to who? Based on what? Measured by what?
I guess I keep resenting those jurors because I feel like instead of focusing on:
can we guarantee that she did this without even a hint of doubt-
they ought to have focused on: does she deserve to be released into society to profit and profit and profit and live happily ever after?
also:
HOW many lives did she affect?!? all the searchers? searching for somethign she KNEW wasn't there? her "job?" the "nanny"
AND SHE'S NOT GUILTY?!?!
those jurors are bastards.
I think this is true for white, middle/upper-class people and I used to think the same thing. It's a completely different story for minorities. Witnesses have a hard time making accurate IDs of people of other races, many minorities are recent immigrants whose families don't have the means to hire a competent attorney, don't speak the language, don't know enough about the system to know they're not represented by someone competent or what to do about it, may be here illegally so they don't want to rock the boat, and are poor so have to live in areas with gang activity where the police assume everyone must be bad.
You should read "Unbillable Hours" by Ian Graham (there's also a documentary about the same case that I'd like to see). It's crazy to see how easily it can happen, and it left me feeling like the accused/convicted should have *more* rights.
It burns me that they came back saying it made them feel "sick to their stomachs" coming back with that verdict but proves you have some nincompoops serving on a jury when they cant (and I quote) "logically understand the prosecutions' argument including how including how Casey Anthony would have used chloroform to smother her 2-year-old daughter, then put her in the trunk of her car without anyone seeing her". "If you're going to charge someone with murder, don't you have to know how they killed someone or why they might have killed someone, or have something where, when, why, how? Those are important questions. They were not answered."
If this is true then why the hell is Scott Peterson in jail? Laci was found in the SF Bay with no head, no arms and no legs. They thought because she had been in water so long her extremeties detached. They never proved how Laci died either but were able to make the connection. I think there are too many stupid people who use emotion to base decisions on to have a truly fair jury trial
it might surprise you to know that I am also AS equally passionate if not moreso about the west memphis 3 case (in favor of the defendants- lol!!!)
I just want to barf on the injustice.
and punch those jurors in their stupid juror faces
This times a gazillion. I hate to say it but I think a lot of things need to be "dumbed down" for people these days. Is it just me or a people just getting progressively dumber?
I need to chime in something on this and don't want to start a whole new thread: I am annoyed that people are now saying the prosecution messed up. Before the verdict, all the "experts" were saying how horrible the defense was and what a great job the prosecution did. Now that the verdict is in, I see a ton of experts and people in general saying the prosecution messed up or should have done x or y. I didn't even watch the whole trial, but I did see a lot of coverage and a lot of the closing arguments and I think they put on a great case and imo, any reasonable person could see she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I do believe the jurors had their minds made up regardless of the case the prosecution put on and/or they don't understand "reasonable doubt"...but I don't think it was the prosecution's fault at all.
...Also, I feel like the people who think people are way too upset over this must not have followed the case that closely because once you watch it and know the facts, it's pretty hard to NOT get emotional and angry about the verdict. I didn't pay a ton of attention at first, but it sucked me in a few weeks ago and I am truly upset (still) over this and the fact she can walk away. Disgusted!
YES, EXACTLY! Let's look at the facts of both cases:
- Scott's wife went "missing" and, while it was reported, he still carried on with his GF, lying about his wife.
- Caylee went "missing" and Casey didn't report it, but still was off with friends, boyfriends, partying, etc.
- When they arrested Scott they found a whole bunch of crap in his truck that could have been used to dispose of Laci's body.
- When they searched Casey's car they found traces of decomp.
- They found Scott had been searching for information about where to launch a boat prior to Laci's death (Laci's body was supposedly dumped somewhere near the Berkeley Marina)
- Casey had searched for information about chloroform prior to Caylee's death
In both cases the bodies were too badly decomposed to determine a cause of death.
So why was it OK to convict Scott (and I was all up on that bandwagon, believe me), but not OK to convict Casey based on VERY SIMILAR circumstances?? Who did the judicial system fail? Scott or Caylee? I'm thinking Caylee.