By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
brendude13 on 06 July 2011
Edit Thread
d21lewis said:
brendude13 said:
d21lewis said:
The problem is, they get these jurors who are not supposed to have any prior knowledge of the case. While our opinions are formed by the media and circumstances that aren't admissable to court, all the jurors can consider is the evidence. There were some holes that just weren't answered by the prosecution. It's easy for us to sit here and say "She's guilty and deserves to die" (How easy? I'll say it right now--Casey Anthony is guilty and deserves to die) but we weren't the ones that had to sit there and look at her for weeks on end and then decide that, based on our decision, she would be condemned to death. Didn't you guys see The DArk Knight? Nobody wants to get their hands dirty!

It would be one thing if there was a confession or a smoking gun. All we had was circumstantial evidence to go on. While I could personally convict somebody based on circumstantial evidence and a little common sense, I don't think I could kill somebody without absolute certainty. I just don't believe the intent to kill was there. They should have never tried to convict that slut of anything more than manslaughter. To charge anybody with ANY crime, you have to be able to prove all of the elements of the crime (intent, included). If a single element isn't accounted for, the case is lost. With murder, they had to prove Casey intended to kill her daughter. With manslaughter, all they had to prove was that Casey was responsible.

And because of that, a killer is going to walk free.

That's what I was thinking. If she wasn't found guilt of murder, couldn't they drop the charges to manslaughter though? I think everybody knows she is responsible for something, just letting her go like this is unnaceptable.

That's the crazy thing about our court system.  It's sort of an all or nothing deal.  They had to charge her with what they think they can prove.  I'm sure Casey was given the option "If you go ahead and plead guilty, we're going to just charge you with manslaughter.  If you don't, we'll charge you with murder." type deal.  Obiously, Anthony maintained her innocence and the prosecution couldn't prove she was a murderer.  Now, she can't be given another trial because, if you're found innocent, you're innocent.  It was the decision of the court.  She could have been found guilty and then fought it but, like a video game, when you win, you won.  None of the losses matter.

It works both ways.  I remember going to court for a guy that commited armed robbery.  The state told him that if he pled guilty, he'd do 5-10 years.  The guy didn't want to take the deal and the judge slammed him with 40 year of prison!!  Anthony rolled the dice and beat the system.  Maybe she beat the court system but I have a feeling she's going to have to look over her shoulder for a long time to come.....  And I'm willing to bet that she's so psycho that she already convinced herself that she's innocent.  She really is a nutcase. 

I think that the court system needs to be more "set in stone", none of these deals or "if you're found innocent, you're innocent" nonsense, so many people are getting away with the most horrific of crimes.

It's such a shame that they tried for murder, rather than manslaughter. While I think there was sufficient evidence, the jury might not agree, and the woman is insane. They gambled and they failed, being found guilty of manslaughter would have given her a sufficient prison sentence.

Hopefully she gets what's coming to her. If she doesn't end up in prison, she could at least be put into a mental hospital.