So Very Guilty for No Reason or Rhyme
I had been doing international stuff for too long, so here comes some random, domestic crap. As anyone within ear or eyeshot of a television, computer or phone knows Casey Anthony was found not guilty of murdering her daughter, but found guilty of lying to police on four separate occasions. For a very brief summary, Caylee Anthony was reported missing and massive search parties went out since it was a cute, missing white girl. By the time they had found her, her body had decomposed and plants were growing through her skull, a truly horrific fate. What came out afterward was that Ms. Anthony had waited a full month before reporting the child missing. In the meantime, she had been out partying, participating in "hot body" contests, getting drunk on facebook and all the classic things mothers of missing children do not do. Nancy Grace, CNN's harpy in chief, seized on the case as the next big media thing. She was right, her ratings have shot up and she was leading the case against Casey Anthony. Most observers watching the circus of a trial noted that she didn't cry or emotionally react when the more disturbing details about Caylee Anthony. Observers noted the evidence piled up that Ms. Anthony lived partying lifestyle and lied to police at almost every step of the way. She lied about having jobs she did not, she lied about leaving the kid with a nanny (most notably lying that there even WAS a nanny) and generally being a morally repugnant human being. However, none of this was actually proof that she directly killed her daughter, so she was found not guilty of first degree murder and was spared the electric chair. So, this case, like OJ and many others before it, will be hotly debated until the next one comes along. But the fact remains, the jury probably did the right thing.
The verdict came back extremely quickly for a case of this magnitude. Generally, the longer the deliberations, the better it is for the defense. Longer time out means more time to argue and deliberate, which means more doubt is raised in the jury's mind, which means less chance it overcame the reasonable doubts of all 12 jurors. So, large list of charges that Ms. Anthony was charged with was presented to the jury, along with all kinds of evidence that showed something happened to the kid and that Casey was her mother, albeit a bad one. They proved she lied to the cops and she proved she can hold her liquor. They proved she was quite the party girl who couldn't handle responsibility. Roughly, they proved she was a more morally questionable doitalone. All in all, she was charged with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four counts of providing false information to a law-enforcement officer. Now, the prosecutor decided to go for the big win and try for the death penalty. So, even if she had been found guilty of aggravated manslaughter and child abuse, that would be murder in the commission of a felony, making it a death penalty predicate case. Consider the irony: the death penalty is often touted as being a deterrent to crime and in this case it may have made the jury feel so guilty they decided to let this woman go free.
Let's look at the charges. First degree murder. Pre-meditated murder intent to kill (rather than just do harm). There is malice aforethought and generally considered one of the more heinous crimes in society. In Florida, this can carry the death penalty and in this case the prosecutor went for it. Of course, Florida juries being made of Floridians, this means they could easily be anti-death penalty as pro. When it's been a big decision, rarely has Florida decided anything easily. Not just the 2000 election, but also the 1876 election of Rutherford B. Hayes over Samuel Tilden. So, they were afraid she'd get the death penalty and they couldn't do a sentencing recommendation, so there they were. Aggravated child abuse, in the state of Florida means a) aggravated battery on a child, b) willfully torturing, maliciously punishing, or willfully and unlawfully caging a child or c) Knowingly or willfully abusing a child and in so doing causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child. Note, none of this means neglect, none of this means leaving the child in a place where harm would come to him or her. Basically, the crime is for things like forcing a child's hand on a stove or beating with a belt. The prosecution didn't prove that; at most they proved neglect. Aggravated manslaughter in Florida means "a person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence. . .commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree" which is also punishable by death. What we have are a bunch of charges that they couldn't prove. They could have proved neglect, they could have proved possibly even reckless endangerment (which would have been a lesser manslaughter charge).
Proof is the key word here. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Not just suggest. Not just "make it look like something bad probably happened. There was no direct forensic evidence linking Casey Anthony to her daughter's death. There was only circumstantial evidence showing that Casey Anthony was a lousy mother and she was a partier. She was a party girl, but that's not a crime. She probably wasn't watching her kid and she got into the pool and drowned, and then she covered it up. She wasn't charged with neglect and she wasn't charged with destruction of evidence. It's a sad thing, but she wasn't convicted of the right crimes and the prosecution didn't prove the crimes they had charged her with. The jury, facing a terrible person but not a criminal, had little choice but to let her go free of charges. Except for lying to police. She got nailed on that hard because they could prove that. Jury cases are not about right and wrong in the cosmic sense, they are about what can be proved. In this level of existence, that's the closest we can get to fair: difficult. We don't have all judge trials and we don't have professional juries. We have people from the community hear the facts as can be proven and they make a decision about guilt or innocence. We have a lot of rules to make it run right, but at the end of the day, that's what it all boils down to. Can a prosecutor convince 12 random people beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime he or she is accused of. If not, then that person is not guilty. It's not based on how we feel about a person's guilt or how we feel about a person's innocence. We don't rule based on feelings.
If we did, there would be a lot more people in a lot more trouble.
So it is written, so do I see it.
The verdict came back extremely quickly for a case of this magnitude. Generally, the longer the deliberations, the better it is for the defense. Longer time out means more time to argue and deliberate, which means more doubt is raised in the jury's mind, which means less chance it overcame the reasonable doubts of all 12 jurors. So, large list of charges that Ms. Anthony was charged with was presented to the jury, along with all kinds of evidence that showed something happened to the kid and that Casey was her mother, albeit a bad one. They proved she lied to the cops and she proved she can hold her liquor. They proved she was quite the party girl who couldn't handle responsibility. Roughly, they proved she was a more morally questionable doitalone. All in all, she was charged with first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four counts of providing false information to a law-enforcement officer. Now, the prosecutor decided to go for the big win and try for the death penalty. So, even if she had been found guilty of aggravated manslaughter and child abuse, that would be murder in the commission of a felony, making it a death penalty predicate case. Consider the irony: the death penalty is often touted as being a deterrent to crime and in this case it may have made the jury feel so guilty they decided to let this woman go free.
Let's look at the charges. First degree murder. Pre-meditated murder intent to kill (rather than just do harm). There is malice aforethought and generally considered one of the more heinous crimes in society. In Florida, this can carry the death penalty and in this case the prosecutor went for it. Of course, Florida juries being made of Floridians, this means they could easily be anti-death penalty as pro. When it's been a big decision, rarely has Florida decided anything easily. Not just the 2000 election, but also the 1876 election of Rutherford B. Hayes over Samuel Tilden. So, they were afraid she'd get the death penalty and they couldn't do a sentencing recommendation, so there they were. Aggravated child abuse, in the state of Florida means a) aggravated battery on a child, b) willfully torturing, maliciously punishing, or willfully and unlawfully caging a child or c) Knowingly or willfully abusing a child and in so doing causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child. Note, none of this means neglect, none of this means leaving the child in a place where harm would come to him or her. Basically, the crime is for things like forcing a child's hand on a stove or beating with a belt. The prosecution didn't prove that; at most they proved neglect. Aggravated manslaughter in Florida means "a person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence. . .commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree" which is also punishable by death. What we have are a bunch of charges that they couldn't prove. They could have proved neglect, they could have proved possibly even reckless endangerment (which would have been a lesser manslaughter charge).
Proof is the key word here. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Not just suggest. Not just "make it look like something bad probably happened. There was no direct forensic evidence linking Casey Anthony to her daughter's death. There was only circumstantial evidence showing that Casey Anthony was a lousy mother and she was a partier. She was a party girl, but that's not a crime. She probably wasn't watching her kid and she got into the pool and drowned, and then she covered it up. She wasn't charged with neglect and she wasn't charged with destruction of evidence. It's a sad thing, but she wasn't convicted of the right crimes and the prosecution didn't prove the crimes they had charged her with. The jury, facing a terrible person but not a criminal, had little choice but to let her go free of charges. Except for lying to police. She got nailed on that hard because they could prove that. Jury cases are not about right and wrong in the cosmic sense, they are about what can be proved. In this level of existence, that's the closest we can get to fair: difficult. We don't have all judge trials and we don't have professional juries. We have people from the community hear the facts as can be proven and they make a decision about guilt or innocence. We have a lot of rules to make it run right, but at the end of the day, that's what it all boils down to. Can a prosecutor convince 12 random people beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime he or she is accused of. If not, then that person is not guilty. It's not based on how we feel about a person's guilt or how we feel about a person's innocence. We don't rule based on feelings.
If we did, there would be a lot more people in a lot more trouble.
So it is written, so do I see it.