This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Casey Anthony found "Not Guilty" of First Degree Murder.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Darnit, Elhonna beat me to it.
I've been slamming caffeine for 5 hours now- I'm pretty quick on the draw today :)
Post by
OverZealous
Ah, very well then - never heard of any of that; I apologize, my mistake.
Post by
Skreeran
While true, this is a sad reality of how our 'injustice system' works. Assuming that I kill someone, as long as I can do a good enough job of cleaning up the scene, and disposal of the body, than I can be caught in dozens of lies, and have mountains of other evidence presented against me, and I will be found not guilty.It's better than the alternative, though. As bad as it is, I'd much rather a few murderers escape justice than a few innocent people get life sentences.
All the legal loopholes and irritating protections that make it easier for their lawyer to get them acquitted are specifically there to protect innocent people caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hence, if there is "reasonable doubt" that the defendant did not commit the crime, the default is to let them go, just in case they are innocent, rather than lock them up, just in case they are guilty.
It's definitely better than the "Eh, close enough," policy of Salem, Massachusetts.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
xaratherus
As much as I'd love for this thread to dissolve into a "one system or the other debate", I honestly feel that the prosecution did a really bad job of perusing this case. Having a case brought to court where there's serious overwhelming doubt if it even is a murder case is just daft in my opinion.
I'm less inclined to blame the system in this case and more inclined to blame the people who are supposed to make it function.
This is what I assume happened as well. The prosecution screwed up badly enough on enough key points that the defense was able to establish reasonable doubt, and the case was lost. If they had instead gone for negligence charges, they might have won it - but there was enough possibility that it could have been an accident (followed by a horrible follow-up act by a mentally-unstable woman) that murder couldn't be proven.
Post by
Magician22773
While true, this is a sad reality of how our 'injustice system' works. Assuming that I kill someone, as long as I can do a good enough job of cleaning up the scene, and disposal of the body, than I can be caught in dozens of lies, and have mountains of other evidence presented against me, and I will be found not guilty.It's better than the alternative, though. As bad as it is, I'd much rather a few murderers escape justice than a few innocent people get life sentences.
All the legal loopholes and irritating protections that make it easier for their lawyer to get them acquitted are specifically there to protect innocent people caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hence, if there is "reasonable doubt" that the defendant did not commit the crime, the default is to let them go, just in case they are innocent, rather than lock them up, just in case they are guilty.
It's definitely better than the "Eh, close enough," policy of Salem, Massachusetts.
I partially agree with you.
The flaw in the system that I see is, a wrongly convicted person still has the right to appeal that conviction if new evidence is found. (I will admit that this is abused by both sides. I have read many cases where people have been denied new trials even when very convincing new evidence is presented, as well as convicts using this just looking for a loophole...but...) However, because of double jeopardy, she can now walk out of the courtroom and freely admit to murdering her child, and NOTHING could be done about it.
A big part of the problem, as has been being discussed in the media today, is that society has a CSI mentality now. They think that "there is always evidence". The truth is, there isn't. Especially when you have 31 days to cover it up. ( in between parties and tattoo's that is).
So, yes, we need something better than the Salem witch trials, but we also should not have to find a smoking gun to convict someone who, to any reasonable person, is guilty. Which is EXACTLY what this case was. The fact is, this came down to nothing more than a sporting event, and her team won the game. Its a shame that that is the final call on a child's life.
Post by
itascagasman
BULL CRAP...........She did it, you can tell just by how she acted in that courtroom. She'll get hers in the end, what goes around comes around.
Post by
Frames
Sad as it is, before today, didn't know about the case, and only knew about the not guilty verdict because it broke into the program I was watching. Other then that.....I just don't really care; if she really did it, sad that she got away with the killing of her own daughter she never should have had in the first place and probably should have just given it up for adoption instead.
I'm pleased to know that murders involving small white children are a billion times more newsworthy than all the other murders.
Pretty much how i feel.
Hardly anyone cared untill today. Even then, people still dont care. The worlds the same.
People continue on with there lives, the ones that are screaming this country is corrupted have already been standing on thier soapbox for awhile.
Post by
Morec0
OJ Anthony...
Well, with any luck she'll do something stupid and the court will get its second chance with something else. If not she'll hang herself cause she wont be able to go anywhere without being able to handle the guilt.
Either way; the Devil is dancing tonight.
Post by
Monday
Hardly anyone cared untill today.
Actually, I did. Same with many, many people I know.
Post by
426611
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gnomerdon
I'm hopping some
somewhat reasonable
utterly crazy person will kill her.
You are definitely a warlock....
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I've been watching this one for a while- pretty much since the beginning. I think the reason it bothers me so much is that there is zero remorse. She was pretty much celebrating her freedom after she killed her child. It really offends me that they didn't at least charge her with negligence, considering her whole defense strategy was that she was only negligent, not a murderer. I'm pretty sure that child endangerment was one of the charges up on the table.
On the flip side, she's going to go to jail for a few years on the lying to the police charges, I believe. Women who kill their children don't fare very well in prison- other inmates tend to target them for violence.
Post by
Lombax
Wait, there are degrees of murder?
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Lombax
Ohh in Sweden the name is different if it's by accident.
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Lombax/Chaos
Killing someone in delf-defense isn't actually considered murder. Usually it's a justifiable defense.
In terms of degrees of murder, there are a lot of factors that decide if you causing someone's death is manslaughter or murder, and what degree it is.
Generally first degree murder is where you specifically set out to kill someone, and usually plan it ahead of time. Also, it is applied to unplanned murders committed during the comission of a felony.
Second degree murder is if you attack someone, and want to hurt them, but didn't intend to kill them. If you jump someone in an alley to beat them up, and in the process they die.
Third degree murder is causing someone's death unintentionally, through gross negligence- like drunk driving, not feeding your kids, or if a nurse doesn't give someone in their care their medicine.
Fourth degree is felony murder by an accomplice. If you're committing a crime, and one of your partners kills someone, you're on the hook for it even if you didn't intend for it to happen or participate, because you were participating in the felony that lead to the murder.
Then there are various degrees of manslaughter, which is un-intentionally killing someone through non-felonies, in the heat of passion, in mutual combat, etc. Generally, if you kill someone in a barfight, by speeding without being under the influence, if you come home and find your wife in bed with someone and flip out and kill them, if you're using guns recklessly while hunting, etc.
Post by
238331
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
It makes sense, though. I think that there's a scary level of cold-bloodedness to plan a murder, in advance, and go into a situation knowing you're going to kill someone. To me that's a more dangerous person who is goaded into a bar fight, and takes it too far. Both people are criminals and murderers, and both people need to be punished, but to actually say to yourself "Today I'm going to kill someone, because it will make me money." or "because they are annoying me" is something scary. It's someone who places no value on human life.
In a situation where someone drinks and drives because they don't really think it will hurt someone, or where someone loses their temper and strikes out in anger, there's room for remorse. There's a good chance that they'll regret what happened, and not repeat it. For someone to whom killing is a convenience, or a business..there's nothing to stop them from doing it again. They're a bigger risk to society.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.