...and there's only one way Mr. Tire Iron is going to get cheered up again.
I realize that millions of people have been filling the voids in their own lives by hanging on every nuance and plot twist of the Casey Anthony trial as though it had any real bearing on their day-to-day existence. And despite the fact that the American media and their viewing public gave a jeering thumbs-down to Ms. Anthony, the jurors stubbornly found her Not Guilty.
Denied their spectacle, the audience flew into a social media rage, piling up 50,000 signatures to pass a federal "Lost or Stolen Children Law".
Because, you know, that's what we really need: another federal felony. This seems like a good idea to somebody?
The level of outrage here is a little creepy to me, too. Do I think Ms. Anthony killed her daughter? Based on what little information on the case I've been unable to avoid, I'd say "Probably, yes," but you can't hang somebody for probably killing someone, and that's the way it should be.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
Mr Cricket Bat is wearing his sad face too.
Nope. Doesn't pass the 5A test. Just like a felon can't be charged with failing to register his gat. The only people who could be prosecuted by this are people who DIDN'T murder their adorable little pee-wee.
s
I actually don't think she killed the kid. Based on the evidence, timeline and behaviors of all parties, including the cops, I believe her father was responsible. And it was likely a death through negligence, followed by cover ups.
He took a gamble and didn't stand up and confess. They never convict hm because the daughter provides his reasonable doubt.
The "dirty little secret" of American law is that it is possible to commit a crime and then beat the rap. It's not really much of a secret, but it's something that people seem to forget all the time. You really can...sometimes...cover your tracks well enough to prevent prosecution, even if you're still arrested. With the potential for incompetent prosecution, intransigent jurors, or a judge who can't manage a trial, it doesn't even always require effort by the criminals. This isn't even accounting for people who aren't actually guilty of the crime charged.
There are still tweaks that are needed to the system, but too much and we wind up convicting innocent people on a "probably" standard.
Living here at ground zero of the mess, what bothers me is all of the people who are running around saying that the verdict makes the Florida court system look bad, and that the jury system is flawed, as evidenced by the NG verdict.
Of course, no one who uses this case to advocate for eliminating the jury system can think of any way to replace it. What do they want, trials by judges?
I don't think the Jury was wrong in making the decision they made, but I DO think that all things considered, that if she wasn't the one who actually murdered the kid then she assisted in the murder. But if they jury didn't find enough proof then the jury didn't find enough proof. And thats the way its supposed to work.
Because, you know, murdering your sweet innocent child, dumping her like trash, lying your ass off to cover it up, costing the taxpayers millions to prosecute, and smiling that despicable smile through the whole thing, just isn't against the law quite enough.
AT
"just isn't against the law quite enough"
if that sort of thing were more illegal, we'd have a different president now, that's for sure.
At times like this, I console myself thus:
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Have you seen the videos people made of themselves watching the verdict read on the tv? What kind of conceit is that? Equally as disgusting as the behavior of that entire family that covered up/enabled their daughter/granddaughter's death.
Anthony won't live forever. And when she faces her Maker, she'll find she hasn't beat the rap, after all. Same with all of her family that aided her in murdering her child and hiding the body.
She, like Andrea Yates, broke the first rule of crazy: you can kill yourself, but don't kill your children.
Nate,
"Have you seen the videos people made of themselves watching the verdict read on the tv?"
I liked the universe better before I read that sentence...
The laws we have now are clearly insufficient to achieve their purpose. JUST ONE MORE LAW, however, and we'll be there. Maybe two.
"I liked the universe better before I read that sentence..."
Embrace the suck. it flows through all living things, and surrounds all of us. The sooner you surrender to the Suck, the sooner Mr Tire iron will be happy again.
WV: Bacteda. I'm pretty sure my ex-wife gave me that, and only bathing in a strong bleach solution would remove it.
But, but, but... the trial by media says she's guilty! No, I wasn't in the courtroom, and no, I didn't serve on the jury, but I KNOW she's guilty, because the media implies it. After all, they wouldn't be wrong and jump to judge someone prematurely *richard jewell* would they? And the police never arrest the wrong person, do they? If the police arrest them and media blames them, they're guilty, even if the prosecuter can't make the case stand in court. By golly, that's the kind of third-world banana-republic kangaroo-court legal system I want.
I just love the "logic" that even though a law against murder doesn't actually stop murder, making a law to report dead or missing children right away, that'll put a stop to this kind of shenanigans right now.
Why, Caylee Anthony would still be alive today if only her mother had been required to report that Caylee was dead or missing, because ...well, wait how's that supposed to work again?
If they ain't afraid to commit murder and mayhem, why would they be afraid to not tell anyone about it?
Dang, I was gonna use the Sir Thomas More quote. That one scene should be required viewing by all law students and legislators.
The DA's arguments may have carried more weight with the jury if he had spent more time on them and less on TV and prepping for his run for Fla. Atty. Gen.
Just another sign that we are living in the Crazy Years, and Nehemiah Scudder awaits in the wings.
I'm feeling lucky that I don't pay for cable TV, and that we only turn it on when my wife get's home - so we miss the whole carpet-of-background-noise crap that this represents. I'm really *blissfully* unaware and absent of any particulars of this thing that has everyone frothing. Being a geezer has its rewards.
The root of most of the problems we have as a country is in the phrase "there ought to be a law", just like this stupid proposal.
Obviously, the worst part of the whole mess is the unavoidable fact of the infanticide involved (insofar as there has been a coverup, even if Caylee's death was accidental), but beyond that, after listening to at least two jurors explain the verdict, I'm convinced that they made the right decision based upon reasonable doubt.
That said, it sickens me to no end to see such things as this happen to children, who've been so neglected and treated so indifferently by the people who should be guarding them with their very life.
Because Double Jeopardy is unconstitutional, it is imperative that every level of government enact its own overlapping laws to make sure that the same person can be persecuted for the same act in different jurisdictions, just to be safe.
Additionally, we must make each act illegal in a number of different ways so persecutors on each level can apply different crimes to the same action. If we don't immediately pass a law against Unlawfully Depriving A Child Of Breath for Greater Than Five Minutes law, preferably with a little girl's name in it or a cute acronym that spells a little girl's name, the BAD GUYS WIN! BLOOD IN THE STREETS!
I am happy that stupid trial is over. The media obviously pimped it because they did not want to cover the ATF's Operation Fast and Furious scandal.
Am I sad for the kid, you bet. Do I think the jurors made the wrong decision, hell no. From what I've seen of the prosecutions evidence and case there is no way they could have convicted. If she was convicted with that limited case and evidence I would have lost the remaining faith I had in the system.
Only one person knows what really happened and sadly she's dead. There was only circumstantial evidence, and none of it was directly tied to the defendant. Note I said directly, no one can prove she herself did any of it. Now everyone is up in a tizzy and frankly I like that the system actually worked.
I had the system come after me for hitting ice and colliding with an oncoming semi, they seemed to have though I meant to do that. They charged my ass with two felonies and I finally got a deal for reckless driving. The reason I took the deal was no felony and the possibility of a fair jury was 0. Most of the potential jurors were going to be people who hated college students and how they drive around the area. I was a college student. The whole experience destroyed what faith I had left in the legal system. For an auto wreck they wanted my right to vote, my right to arms, and my freedom. The system is already overly bloated with BS laws. If someone wants to through you through the ringer, believe me you're guilty already of at least something.
The media convicted this woman from the start, no one actually examined the evidence and everyone assumes she's guilty. Could she be, yes, however at the same time she might well not be guilty. I would hope that we could all be in agreement that it's better to have the guilty go free than someone innocent by locked up in prison. Does it suck, yes, but I am considerably more interested in justice for the innocent and the victim, than for guilty. We all want justice for the kid, but let me state something right here, right now that many do not know about the legal system: There is NO correlation between the law and justice.
Many people forget that our justice system isn't designed to punish the guilty, it's designed to protect the innocent in the system.
Stinks sometimes, but there it is.
TheMinuteman,
As a former state-level prosecutor, all I can tell you is that in every office I've worked, I've been confident that none of my co-workers would prosecute a case they didn't believe had at least probable cause (and that's enough: it's for the judge or jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt). Now, dropping cases based on extrajudicial reasons, or problematic judges/juries...yes. I also have no doubt that there are plenty of Nifong-esque prosecutors out there. At the least, though, I've found them to be rare.
From the commentators I have heard, who actually paid attention to the case and aren't just pretty faces reading a scrpit, it looks to me like this case is like the OJ case. (For OJ, I think he either did it, or covered up for his anger-issue ridden son. However, the prosecution screwed the pooch big time, and his acquittal is the result of their actions and lack of prep more than OJ's "Dream Team".)
The prosecution did not make a convincing argument in this case, and the jury acquitted her.
I don't know what the prosecution may have been counting on that ended up being thrown out, or if the prosecution decided they had a slam-dunk, and maybe breezed over something they could have gotten the hit with, but that's the way the system is supposed to work.
As I understand it, they made a key underpinning of their case the motive (they didn't even have to provide a motive, but thought it would seal the deal). Unfortunately, the motive-based-case they offered apparantly went over like a lead zepplin when the jury didn't believe the motive etheory the sttae offered.
Apart from the 5th Amendment issue (and the fact that almost everyone would report it anyway), and the alleged fact that most jurisdictions make you wait 24 hours before reporting a missing child (on the very plausible grounds that almost all of 'em turn up within a day)...
laws named after a prominent victim are ALWAYS BAD IDEAS.
The one thing I do wonder about for the verdict is why Scotland is the only place I know of that has, or had, a third possible verdict - Not Proven. I know it was being hotly debated in Scotland a few years ago, but have forgotten most of the arguments for either side. I think it boiled down to "what is the use of a verdict that says the jury feels the defendant guilty but not strongly enough to say so." Well, I would not like it, but I think it not much worse than plea bargaining. Sometimes you take what you can as practical rather than perfect.
There's too much pain in the world...
We just need a law that says everyone has to be HAPPY!
Og and Tam:
Right up there with Jarsquatter.
What can be seen cannot be unseen.
I don't know if she did it or not. But, after watching the mass hysteria over the trial (complete with citizens fighting for seats in the courthouse), I'm left with the gloomy conclusion that we are quite advanced over the Roman Empire. They had bread and circuses; we have welfare and a 24/7 news cycle. We are much more efficient in arranging for our own downfall...
@Wildwood well I guess you're different because my experience was exactly what my dad told me about prosecutors. "It takes a good prosecutor to convict a guilty man, it takes a great one to convict an innocent one."
They tried to con me into a plea deal by dropping one of the felonies. Ended up one of the people that collided with the semi after I hit it worked with the prosecutors office regularly. Didn't find that out until after the final agreement. That's what I get for running out of money and needing a public defender. My first attorney consulted 4 other counties in the surrounding area's with the evidence and none would go to trial with it or even pursue the charges. Yet that ass-hat ran it right up to the end.
Funniest thing about the whole mess was the fact they were supposedly doing this to serve justice for the victims. Only other person who was injured was my wife, everyone else walked away. At the time I was the only one working and supporting the house hold and he wanted to send me upstate for a year and a half. Had a 500 dollar fine at the end to "compensate the victims" yet my wife who was the victim still hasn't seen any of it.
Bottom line it was a newly elected prosecutor trying to make himself look tough against college students. I was the poor sap who hit ice 2 miles prior to the county line. That little shit damn near cost me everything and for what? The second count of vehicular assault was for someone who walked away, and the first was for someone I was taking care of.
If you think I hate prosecutors, you should hear my wife some time. She wants that guy strung up by his nuts for that BS. His little jaunt damn near left us homeless, and her without someone to help support her through recovery.
I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this; I was beginning to wonder if I was.
Besides, if she did do it, they say karma is a bitch....
I liked the universe better before I read that sentence...
I have been getting that feeling all week. All the people caught up in this stuff are the same type of people who would kill themselves to Judas Priest records and expect their parents to sue the band.
FWIW a doc friend of mine said the woman had most of the idicators of being a socipath. And that type of personality can usually get away with doing most anything until eventually they get so over come by their own magnificense that they finally get caught.
Think about this - do you know any (normal) mom who doesn't go into a damn near panic-attack if her rugrat(s) disappear for longer then a minute or so?
Anon 5:48,
Yes. I believe she exhibited sociopathic traits, at least as I understand them...
...which has not a goddam thing to do with the price of tea in China.
Post a Comment