Quantcast
Casey Anthony Trial? What do you all think? Casey Watch is here.

Forums - General Discussion - Casey Anthony Trial? What do you all think? Casey Watch is here.

Tagged games:

Fayceless said:
brendude13 said:
Fayceless said:
Chroniczaaa said:
Lolz America's justice system is a piece of shit.


Why?  Would you rather we just locked up everybody accused of a crime?

We have the absolute best justice system. (though far from perfect)  We do not have the best laws or prison system - this is an important distinction.

And nobody should ever, ever, say the justice system is bad because somebody they think is guilty goes free.  "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"  This is the beauty of our justice system.

Plus, you don't know what went on in that courtroom, or that jury room.  You don't have any more evidence than the media showed you.  You have no right to form an opinion on this case - you weren't there!

 

It seems to me that this is a simple case of "Beyond a reasonable doubt."  While it seems likely that she is guilty, it is not certain.  Therefore, she should not be sent to prison.

Open your eyes, NOTHING can be certain, you have to find the fine line between guilty and not guilt, this woman was way past it.

You probably don't even know anything about the justice system in other countries, why are you being so defensive, do you just like to tell yourself and other people that America has the best justice system as an excuse to wave the American flag? In any other country she would have been locked away.

You keep implying that this woman could be innocent, the bottom line is, if you wait 30 days before reporting your missing daughter, you are guilty of something, that is ignoring the countless other peices of evidence.

And so what if we weren't in the court room, we were given the evidence by the press, the irony is we could WATCH the court case on the internet, my sister watched the whole thing.


I say it's better for the exact reason you state in your post: In any other country she would have been locked away. Locked away without any real evidence.  Locked away with reasonable doubt.  Locked away because it "looks suspicous" when there could be legitimate reasons for her strange behavior.  Mentally ill people don't always behave the way one would expect them to, and we don't know what's going on inside her mind.  That our justice system doesn't try to read minds: that's why it's good.

In the end, she did SOMETHING, and she should be held until they get the truth out of her. Whether it was murder or manslaughter, they need to know the truth before they let her free again, it's as simple as that.

She is guilty of something, and they just let her walk free, it's a joke.

There was more than enough "real evidence".



Around the Network

well the media and talk shows have crucified her...practically everyone believes she's guily; both polls and interviews back them up, she will never have a decent life again here in the states(though rumor has it she moving to Europe?)
how can she ever go back to her family; specially her dad



She doesn't come from a rich family. Her lawyer did it for free. I live in the same city as her and have driven by her house before. I dated a girl that used to be friends with her. The girl I dated was also crazy and good riddance.



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.



Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!

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.



Around the Network
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.

I agree with your assessment. There was no direct link between Casey and the actual murder. Nothing that proves she actually perpetrated the crime. But I do think she was guilty just based on how she did not report her child missing for over a month, concealed evidence from the police, AND lied to them. If someone is not guilty, they would not have to lie and conceal anything. She is one fucked up woman. The problem here, like you said, is the charge for murder. And with murder comes capital punishment. I think the jury felt too scared to sentence someone to death without definitive evidence that she committed the crime. Had it been manslaughter and the sentence was time in jail, the jury would have probably found her guilty. As such, we have a deranged, evil bitch roaming the streets!



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. 



Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!

Just so everyone is clear: she WAS found guilty on four counts of lying to police. The jury could have found her guilty of manslaughter, but they did not. My guess is since there was no solid evidence linking her to her daughters death, they felt they could not find her guilty of that.

She'll get up to a year for each count of lying. But as she's already been in for 3 years, time served will limit that to 1 year tops, probably.



I'm happy it's over,because I got tired of hearing about it.



Fayceless said:
Just so everyone is clear: she WAS found guilty on four counts of lying to police. The jury could have found her guilty of manslaughter, but they did not. My guess is since there was no solid evidence linking her to her daughters death, they felt they could not find her guilty of that.

She'll get up to a year for each count of lying. But as she's already been in for 3 years, time served will limit that to 1 year tops, probably.


But false info is such a slap on the wrist sort of crime.  She could do three years for them (at the descretion of the judge) but if so, it's only because the judge felt she needed to be punished.  I've seen people walk out of the courtroom without doing a day in jail for false information.  One thing that I'm hoping is that her previous charges (the jury wasn't allowed to hear them since they had no bearing on this case) of stealing her best friends credit cards are still pending.  Hopefully she'll be found guilty and does some time for that.



Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!