The Great Debate: Casey Anonthy

Our legal system already fails, Letting rapists, child molesters and murders get entitled to bail, while forcing someone convicted of holding a lil too much pot to go straight to jail.

So we should just let it fail in all aspects? That isn't sound logic.

And if you felt as though I was attacking you, I'm sorry but you're being overly sensitive.

I never said you were attacking me, you just tried to dissect a post that had nothing to do with what you were trying to support. It just reeks of blind defensiveness, because it was unnecessary.

Also, convicting exclusively on circumstantial evidence is fail. You need something solid that ties them to the circumstance.

Again, if I search "Rifles" and "Shooting" and a block away, someone gets shot, do I become a suspect? That's circumstantial evidence.

Although it would be nice if all evidence was direct evidence, that's just not how ***works. Our legal system would fail if we only relied on direct evidence. Sometimes all you have is circumstantial evidence, but even in criminal law, if circumstantial evidence leads you to a logical and reasonable conclusion, you can convict. In cases, jurors are supposed to understand that there is no legal distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence.

Bottom line is....... the jury did not have enough evidence to convict Beyond a reasonable doubt on a capital punishment case. I don't know about you.... but convicting someone on circumstantial evidence would be a hard and unfair decision. As to the jurors are supposed to understand the distinction.. The proof is in the pudding my friend
http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/04/jury-instructions-in-the-casey-anthony-trial/

The fact that they didn't even convict her of manslaughter just shows that this jury had some sort of complex going into the case, and felt that they needed to prove something themselves.

How so? Why are you so sure she's guilty?

beyond a reasonable doubt adj. part of jury instructions in all criminal trials, in which the jurors are told that they can only find the defendant guilty if they are convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" of his or her guilt. Sometimes referred to as "to a moral certainty," the phrase is fraught with uncertainty as to meaning, but try: "you better be damned sure."

You know to be honest, all your logic is prone to starting arguments...... Just Saying!

I've followed the details of the case.

I didn't dissect your post, let go.

If you searched rifles, and shooting, and your child went missing for 31 days and you didn't report it and deliberately lied about it, and there was gunpowder residue in your car, and the child's remains were found near your home with a hole from a gunshot, then I would say that was enough circumstantial evidence to convict.

So why do they have some sort of complex? I'm seriously trying to understand but I can't. It feels to me that you have it out for someone who might not even be responsible for the crime.

So basically, if I was a gun enthusiast, and was paranoid about the ***we see on TV daily, of overzealous prosecution seeking "Conviction at any cost", I'd be convicted as an innocent man.

That's not justice.

You presented a situation vastly different than Casey Anthony's to fit your argument. It wasn't even remotely related.

I don't see it that way, and apparently neither did the jury, so, too bad?

Again, if I search "Rifles" and "Shooting" and a block away, someone gets shot, do I become a suspect?

This is what you wrote, lol. I don't know if you followed the case but that is not what the prosecution's case amounted to. The jury didn't do a good job, is what I am saying. Yeah, I guess that is too bad.

I fail to see the fundamental difference. Circumstantial is circumstantial. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, and having a totally circumstantial case leaves many reasonable doubts.

Whether she is guilty or not, the Jury followed the law, and did a great job in that regard.

(by the way, I personally think she did it)

If the jury can't even be sure how Caylee died, how do you expect for someone to be convicted of using some hypothetical method of killing someone?

They had the best human decomposition person in the world and there still was no clear cut method of determining even HOW she died. You want to convict someone of murder in the 1st degree as well as the extremely over-zealous notion of putting someone to death based on circumstantial evidence?

Yeah, maybe she did do it. But it's the fault of the prosecution not being able to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt and you can't hold it against the jury in reluctance to condemn and kill someone based on circumstantial evidence and the emotional degree of potentiality. The system worked, and I'm glad that the jury (which originally was at a 10-2 margin on conviction) didn't become prey to the emotional rapefest that the likes of those like Nancy Grace have cashed in on and now run embarassed.

nope and it didn't

Shoulda charged w/ neglect. Overcharged and lost. Bad gamble, shitty prosecution

I heard rumors that Vivid offered her a porn deal, and then retracted it from negative reaction haha.

The death of Caylee Marie Anthony was caused by the culpable negligence of Casey Marie Anthony."

Who is to say really? She's getting off clean simply because there is no binding evidence to state that she is guilty. She did not confess, she did not have anything that would place her as guilty beyond questionable doubt for the death of her child.

Her entire testimony was a load of lies. This is the loop hole that American Law has, if there is no binding evidence that allows a suspect to be held, he walks free. Regardless of the fact that common sense would lead to believe otherwise.

What kind of person, knows her child is missing, makes up stories, and parties all night?

Her tattoo reads: Beautiful Life, what does that imply?

On a psychological level that implies she's free. Wonder what she could of freed herself from? Oh right, the responsibility of being a Mother, because when you are a parent and you have to take care of your child, there's no time for partying and tattoos like that.

It's not just negligence, it's a whole other level shamelessness, and selfishness.

I heard rumors that Vivid offered her a porn deal, and then retracted it from negative reaction haha.