The Instigator
bsufan101
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Double_R
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

Casey Anthony rightfully was found not guilty

Do you like this debate?NoYes+10
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
Double_R
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,435 times Debate No: 17445
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (37)
Votes (7)

 

bsufan101

Pro

Ok, this debate is intended to be done by people who know law. I am a law student at Boise State, I am looking for people who are no just giving opinions but can use law steps to argue. Also must know info n case.

My basic argument is this:

Casey Anthony was rightfully found not guilty of the more serious charges set before her in the court of law.The reasons for me coming to this conclusion is this:

1: There was no evidence presented by the prosecution to show for sure that Casey had actually killed her daughter.
2: Activity or actions do not justify guilt. Yes I will admit some of the actions conducted my Casey were quite questionable after Caylee's death. However there this doesn't prove any thing was done wrong by the person.
3:No murder weapon. There was never a actual cause of death or murder weapon produced, so how can you prove if the person did it?

Thank you to whoever joins in this debate. I also would like to point out tha the last round can not be used for new evidence.
Double_R

Con

I’d like to thank Pro for a very interesting resolution.

Reasonable Doubt
: If the jury has a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the jury should pronounce the defendant not guilty. Conversely, if the jurors have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.(1)

Law in juror reasoning
: An important note is that the law has very few limitations on what a juror may base its decision on. Jurors are specifically intended to be “layman’s” who are not professionals in law or in the fields of evidence presented. This is to ensure that their verdict will be based only on the evidence presented in court, and will do so according to the judge’s instructions as to what evidence may be considered. In those instructions the judge also states that jurors are to use their own judgment in evaluating the truthfulness of a given testimony or the strength of evidence presented(2).

Rebuttal

Pros case can be summed up by stating that there was no “when”, “where”, or “how” established in determining the death of Caylee Anthony. I agree that these are extremely important questions that should have answers to render the defendant guilty. However Pro has only demonstrated that the verdict can not be concluded inductively. The law does not stipulate that jurors must come to their verdict using such reasoning. By contrast when using deductive reasoning, there are no reasonable doubts that would be left in the mind of any reasonable person of the defendants guilt as my case will demonstrate.

Prosecution
(Due to character limits I will use 1 source for all evidence unless specified otherwise(3))

1. Google searches performed by Casey indicate possible intent to murder

Authorities seized Casey’s computer which revealed google searches for “neck breaking”, “death”, “household weapons” and amazingly, “chloroform” was searched 84 times. The defense’s answer to this is that Casey’s mother Cindy performed the searches for chloroform, however Cindy’s employment records conclusively show that she was at work while these searches were made(4).

2. Casey demonstrated characteristics of the guilty party

A)
She lied about Caylee’s disappearance: No one knew that Caylee had gone missing for 31 days. After her parents began suspecting that something had happened to their granddaughter Casey told them that she was with “Zanny the Nanny”. She continued this story to investigators including telling them that she worked at Universal Studios which had not been the case for 2 years. She would later admit that she intentionally mislead investigators because she believed it would help them find Caylee, which is a complete contradiction to her eventual defense.

B)
She demonstrated that she was happy with Caylee’s death: In the weeks after Caylee’s death, Casey was seen partying with friends and getting a tattoo which translates to “beautiful life”. Her friends and family testified that she showed no signs of anything being wrong and investigators also found a diary entry simply marked “June 21st” which read the following:

I have no regrets, just a bit worried. I just want for everything to work out OK. I completely trust my own judgment and know that I made the right decision. I just hope that the end justifies the means. I just want to know what the future will hold for me. I guess I will soon see – This is the happiest that I have been in a very long time. I hope that my happiness will continue to grow– I've made new friends that I really like. I've surrounded myself with good people – I am finally happy. Let's just hope that it doesn't change.”

3. Casey’s trunk had the odor of a dead body

On July 15th George Anthony went to the tow yard to pickup his daughter Casey’s car after she had abandoned it. When he arrived, both he and the attendant would notice a distinct odor coming from the trunk that George would later testify to be that of a decomposing dead body. George, who had experience in this field as a retired police officer was not the only professional who believed the smell to be that of a dead body. There was also additional forensic evidence that would suggest that the odor was in fact that of the decomposition of Caylee’s body. The defense would later offer strong scrutiny of the forensics but failed to disprove it or offer any contentions to the contrary.

4. Caylee’s crime scene clearly demonstrates the characteristics of a murder by her mother

A)
Caylee’s body was found in the woods: She was in a garbage bag with duct tape around her mouth.

B)
Items found at the crime scene match that of Casey’s: The same type of laundry bags, garbage bags, duct tape that was used in concealing Caylee’s body were all found in Casey’s residence. The duct tape in particular was said by investigators to be of “a rare brand”. Cindy Anthony had also previously reported a Winnie the Pooh blanket missing from Caylee’s bedroom. This same type of blanket was found at the crime scene.

Defense

The story of the defense is that Caylee drowned in the swimming pool in the backyard, and Casey and her father covered it up. The defense showed that the drowning was a possibility by showing pictures of Caylee climbing the ladder by herself and showing that Casey did not safeguard the door allowing Caylee a way out to the pool. The defense also argued that Casey’s odd behavior was the result of a girl who was scared and suffered from poor judgment partially as a result of a rough childhood in which she was sexually assaulted by her family. However the defense offered no evidence or testimony to affirm any of this and Casey’s family testified to the contrary.

The prosecution also showed many video’s of conversations between Casey and her parents while in jail that also give no indication of any of this. One of those videos in particular from August 14th, show Cindy telling her daughter of a rumor that Caylee drowned in the swimming pool and Casey sarcastically replying “surprise surprise” in apparent disgust of the rumors going around(5).

Summary

While there is much more evidence these are the main points that have been established as fact. When looking at this issue the first thing to consider is how the story of the defense could possibly be true. Just some of what would have to be true is: a loving mother, loses her daughter in an accident, involves her father (who was a retired police officer) in the cover up of this accident to instead make it appear as a murder, and then leave the body in the woods with no plan as to how to keep this a secret or what to do when the body is found. Afterward, the mother (who is a victim here), goes out partying and getting a tattoo saying “beautiful life”. This plan also included utilizing the same items found in the house, and abandoning the car only for the same person who helped in all this being the one who would create attention to it when finding the car.

Meanwhile the prosecutions case fits together perfectly. I would go into detail on it but I am out of space, so I will leave it for this round as it is fairly obvious.

Conclusion

The jury has a responsibility to return a verdict of guilty if there are no reasonable doubts as to the defendant’s guilt. There are clearly no reasonable doubts in this case. My main objective in this round was to demonstrate the facts. In upcoming rounds I will further demonstrate my main overall contention. I look forward to pros rebuttals.



Debate Round No. 1
bsufan101

Pro

First off I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate:

Now to the case, first off yes there are many pieces of evidence that quite frankly look bad for Casey. When first seeing all this stuff come up I was shocked and thought she should be found guilty of something. Now here is the thing about this case that makes Casey not guilty.

First Degree Murder:
In order for a person to be found guilty of first degree murder there must be a premeditation for the murder. First and foremost there is nothing that shows any premeditation for this murder at all. In fact many friends of the family have come forward and talked about the love that Casey and Caylee shared for each other. Yes Casey liked to party but on numerous chats with friends she would say she wanted to go out and have a good time but her daughter came first. So how in a moment of time can a mother go from loving and caring of her daughter flip and go off and kill her? There was absolutely no cases ever reported or talked about where Casey abused or neglected her daughter, again all that was ever talked about was how she loved her daughter.

Evidence: When in a murder case the jury is told to only look at the evidence presented, also in law a person is innocent until proven guilty. Looking at all the evidence of this case there is nothing that full on puts Casey as the killer. There were no fingerprints found anywhere, no DNA evidence presented that put Casey at the scene at all. Now for the car, there was chloroform found to be in the trunk, also even more than that was fuel to be found in the trunk. Now in the trunk there was a decomposed piece of hair belonging to Caylee. What was not there was any other evidence of decomposition. When a body decomposes there are fluids that are released from the body. There was absolutely nu fluid in the trunk at all. Also something that needs to be looked at is that there were three people who had access to that car, not just Casey.
I do not remember if this was found in the trunk or at the scene of the body but hair was identified that did not belong to anybody from the Anthony family or the meter reader. So there is a person involved that is not identified.
Now one of the biggest things that is needed to put a murder on a person is the murder weapon. There was not a single person who could identify the cause of death, yes duct tape was an identified cause that could of happened, but never officially named the weapon used. And the only person identified ever using said duct tape was George Anthony.

Lying:
Casey Anthony did a lot of lying. But also Cindy Anthony did too, in fact she is now in danger of being indited for lying under oath. Obviously there is a history of lying from both people, there is no way of knowing exactly what happened.

My case:
Now I am in no way saying that she is 100% innocent. Obviously she knows something she is not saying. However I will go back to what I previously said. First degree murder has certain things needed to be proven. There is a different crime that will post that she is more likely to be guilty of, and that is second degree murder. Now I say this instead of voluntary manslaughter because there seems to be more to the murder. Second degree murder is more of a catch all for murder. There has been many claims of the relationship between Casey and Cindy. One in particular I find quite interesting and that is that right before Caylee died Cindy attacked Casey. She went as far as to strangle her. Also something that keeps being brought up is that Casey wanted to party, she got the tattoo, she didn't want a kid, however lets look at it like this. First Casey obviously did not have a job for a time, now where did the money come from to take care of her daughter? The grandparents. They treated and cared for Caylee like she was there own daughter, they loved her. So Casey was not being held back by her daughter at all because her parents cared for her.

Now an alternative to the cause of death presented was a accidental drowning. Cindy on the stand said that they always moved the ladder to make sure Caylee would not go into the pool. However there are pictures of Caylee opening the back door to the house and also when Cindy got home that afternoon, the day Caylee died the ladder was by the pool. If Casey Anthony was to kill her daughter to make her life better why would she risk it not working by just putting tape over her mouth?

Overall:
Yes Casey Anthony is a very shady person, her actions are questionable. However there is o evidence that would justify her being charged with first degree murder, the most serious offense a person can commit. There is no motive established, no evidence that she even did it, and no proof of premeditation. All these things are required for first degree murder. And as for all charges of child abuse again no evidence was ever presented showing previous charges or incidents. The charges posted by the prosecution do not add up to the evidence they had in the case, second degree murder could have resulted in a different outcome.

As far as the jury's responsibility in charging people, reasonable doubt must only be found in the person committing the crime. We are run on "innocent until proven guilty". If there is even a hint that the person did not commit the crime then the person must be found not guilty. There is no evidence directly connecting Casey to this murder and so there is clear doubt that she might not have been the killer.

Again thank you to my opponent.
Double_R

Con

1. First degree murder was not the only charge


Pro begins and ends his last round by showing that the evidence does not fit first degree murder. However, Pro clarified his resolution in round 1 by stating that Casey was found not guilty of the “more serious charges” set before her. Of those charges was also count 2, aggravated manslaughter. The following is the definition provided by the state of Florida(1):


“The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder”


Clearly, proving intent is not required. I did not think this would be necessary to discuss because by Pro stating “more serious charges”, I felt that the resolution was clear. Not to mention the fact that it would be pointless to debate weather she was rightfully found not guilty of only count 1, being that the public generally accepts that a not guilty verdict on this count is reasonable. Therefore aggravated manslaughter is the charge in question.


2. Deductive reasoning must be applied


Pros round 2 argument is a perfect demonstration of what I feel went wrong in this trial. He is correct that there is no direct evidence of Casey’s guilt. However he has only demonstrated more in detail that a guilty verdict in this case can not be reached inductively.


Deductive reasoning is a very basic and necessary form of reasoning by all people in everyday life. It is simply a process of drawing a conclusion by eliminating impossible or extremely unlikely alternatives. Test takers in high school and college become very familiar with this concept. Many times when taking a multiple choice exam we are faced with a question that we do not know the answer to. However if our choices are A, B, C, and D, and we know that A, B, and C are all incorrect, then we can easily conclude the correct answer to be D. To utilize only the logic of Pros round 2 argument, would be to say that… “the answer is not A, B, or C… but that doesn’t mean that it is D.”


To be fair Pro did suggest that there were other possibilities, so my example is an exaggeration of his round 2 argument. However this concept does apply in this case, as I will show with my next contention.


3. The swimming pool accident is the only alternative to consider


It is very important to understand that as I stated earlier, the jury is not told how to reach a verdict. This is an essential part of our justice system to ensure that the verdict is that of “the people” and not the government. The only limitations that are instructed to the jury, basically state that their verdict must be based only on the evidence presented and accepted by the judge. This is not specifically outlined however, so pieces of it are left for the jurors to reasonably interpret. Therefore how we interpret this instruction is a major factor in this debate. The following is my interpretation that I feel is beyond reasonable:


The defense does not have the option of providing multiple stories that might explain the innocence of the defendant. In other words, they can not show multiple pieces of evidence and use them to say “well this story is a possibility, but here is another possibility… so if any of these possibilities seem reasonable to you then she is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”. This is obviously an absurd notion that places an impossible burden on the Prosecution.


Defense attorneys however do realize that not providing any contentions of innocence may be interpreted by the jury as evidence of guilt, even if it is not supposed to legally. With this realization the defense often does present their contention. In this case the defense made their contention clear that Caylee died in a swimming pool accident. They made this official by introducing evidence that supports this contention when they showed pictures of Caylee in that same swimming pool. From that point, the jury is able to narrow down their possibilities from all the other imagined theories of what may have happened to Caylee. To accept an imagined theory that was not at all supported, directly violates the judges instructions of basing their verdict on only the evidence presented.


4. The Defense


Proving that any single piece of the story of the defense is false does not negate the entire story, but it does allow the jury to narrow down some aspects of what might have happened. Being that the defense made it clear that Caylee’s death was covered up by Casey and her father, combined with the evidence of the prosecution; there are no other reasonable suspects in this case besides Casey and her father. But there is no evidence or reason to suggest that George was involved. To make an accident appear as a murder is something that is conceivable for one person to somehow decide, it is not reasonable that two people would make this decision especially when one of them is a retired police officer.


Combine this theory with the incredible incompetence demonstrated at the crime scene (as I described in round 1), along with Georges behavior being consistent with that of a reasonable person, and also along with George being the first person to report an issue by identifying the odor in the trunk as that of a dead body, and there is no reasonable way to conclude that George was involved in the incomprehensible and incompetent cover up of this “accident”.


Now consider the possibility of this being an accident. Pro describes how loving Casey was of her daughter. Yet, consider that she loses her daughter in an “accident”, goes out partying for 31 days, gets a tattoo reading “beautiful life”, is found to posses a diary entry expressing her happiness in “making the right decision” which is coincidentally dated 4 days after the date which Caylee was last seen, continues to spend time with friends showing no change in her demeanor, lies emphatically to impede investigators efforts, and it is by no means reasonable that she is a women who innocently lost her daughter in an accident.


The story of the defense is obviously false.


5. The Prosecution


As outlined in round 1, we have Casey’s computer containing searches for “neck breaking”, “household chemicals” and “chloroform” (which was also found in her trunk of all places), a daughter that goes missing for 31 days, a mother who does not report it or show any remorse for it, an odor of a dead body discovered in that mothers trunk, a mother who lies for weeks misleading police in their investigation to find this missing child, and the dead body of this child found near a swamp in the woods wrapped in the same garbage bags and duct tape found in that mothers home among other things. It is clear what this concludes.


6. Defense vs. Prosecution = No Contest


Every single piece of the Prosecutions story is overwhelmingly supported by the facts in this case. Meanwhile the basic contention (supported with little to no evidence) of the defense is overwhelmingly inconsistent with reality.


Conclusion


Although the defense does not have to prove innocence, the question is not weather the Prosecution proved every aspect of their case, but weather it is reasonable by any means to doubt the defendant’s guilt. I have shown that when being consistent with the evidence presented, such doubts are unreasonable.


Jurors are not supposed to be mindless robots that use an instruction manual to reach a decision. They are supposed to think on their own with only few legal limitations. There is no way to doubt the defendant’s guilt in this case without intentionally closing your eyes to the facts.


(1) http://www.miami-criminal-lawyer.net...

Debate Round No. 2
bsufan101

Pro

Again a big thanks to my opponent, this has been a fun debate.

My opponent keeps coming back to the fact that the jury needs to use there own reasoning to find the verdict. That is all fine and good, however how do we expect 12 jurors to convict a girl who by all right was never proven beyond a reasonable doubt did any crime? And yes I am sorry for just talking abut first degree murder. The other charges also had no standing in them when looking at the evidence presented by the prosecution.

Her activity:

Yes Casey Anthony acted quite strange after her daughter had died. However that in no way proves guilt, neither does her lying. The only thing that will prove Casey Anthony guilty of any charge besides lying to police because that was clearly proven is hard evidence that puts her at the scene.

Car:
Yes chloroform was found to be in the trunk, but as a test proved the larger portion of air in the trunk was gas. Also keep in mind that Cindy sprayed an entire bottle of fabress in the trunk of the car, chemical decomposition of that product was found to also produce chloroform. Also keep in mind there were many people who had access to the car, so the fact that the smell of death was found i the trunk of a car that she uses proves that she did it. There were other keys for the car not just hers.

The main thing you the voters and subsequently the jurors in this case needs to look at is the fact that there is huge amounts of doubt in this case. Beyond a reasonable doubt clearly says that if there is a reasonable doubt to the defendants guilt you must find the defendant not guilty. Unless the doubt is unreasonable. There is no clear evidence that proves she did it, making it a reasonable doubt that she did the crime, showing what she did in a months time, showing the activities she partook in and the tattoo she got does not in any way prove guilt. It does prove that she is a typical 20 some year old out with her friends partying. Not the acts of a murderer. In the court of law we can not expect a jury to convict a girl just based on her actions during a period of time. The killer was never truly identified or the murder weapon. Coroners for the prosecution couldn't even determine the cause of death.

The last thing I am going to say is this:
You the voters and the jurors can not find this person guilty on a pure hunch from her actions.
Double_R

Con

Pro begins his final round making a point by asking the following question:

“how do we expect 12 jurors to convict a girl who by all right was never proven beyond a reasonable doubt did any crime?”

I have answered this question very clearly with my argument. Pro has not addressed it.

Deductive Reasoning

Pro has made no attempt to acknowledge this concept. His argument demonstrates my analogy. Apparently he does not believe that we can know the answer is D, even if we can exclude A, B, and C. On the other hand if he does believe A, B, or C are reasonable possibilities he has made no attempt to show why.

Swimming Pool Alternative

Pro has made no attempt to acknowledge this concept either. This is a major part of any trial similar to this one. Again, the defense does not have to prove innocence but they do not have the luxury of providing the court with multiple pieces of evidence to support multiple theories. In this reality there is only one story of what happened.

Rebuttals

Her Activity
: Pro states that Casey’s actions in no way prove guilt. I never said that they did. I did however explain that these actions are an established fact that was presented as evidence in court. They are an indication of what happened and can not be ignored. Behavior is not usually strong evidence of anything in court, but when the behavior is as incomprehensible as Casey’s, it would quite frankly make it foolish to suggest that it does not mean anything.

Car
: Pro points out minor facts to apparently suggest that there are other possibilities as to the story of the car. I find it interesting that Pro did not have any details to try to explain the crime scene, the google searches, Casey’s behavior, or any reasons why we should actually believe the swimming pool story. But as far as the evidence for the car, Pro suggests that other people had access to it. This is a perfect example of why I find Pros doubts to be unreasonable. Every time we accept a minor detail like this we must apply it to reality. To suggest that someone else had access to the car, serves only to suggest that someone else might have killed Caylee. For this to be true Casey would then be the victim of what someone else did to her child, and her response is to go out partying with her friends among getting the tattoo and everything else. However if someone else was simply involved then Casey would still be guilty of manslaughter by culpable negligence so that idea would not change the verdict.

“There is no clear evidence that proves she did it, making it a reasonable doubt that she did the crime”

Pro is suggesting that there is no clear evidence, because he is only looking for evidence that matches his specific criteria. This demonstrates one of the biggest misconceptions about our judicial system. The burden of proof does rest on the Prosecution. This however does not mean that the Prosecution must have specific required elements to qualify for a conviction. The jury in any trial is expected to think and rationalize as any normal reasonable person would. No reasonable person looks at this situation and disregards the facts about Casey’s strange behavior, the numerous amounts of evidence that make her by far the most likely perpetrator, and the lack of a coherent alternative possibility. Pro seems to suggest that we must have X, Y, and Z before a jury can convict. If that were the case there would not be a trial in the absence of such required evidence. The law also makes this very understandable by its definitions of proof and reasonable doubt.

Proof
: The establishment of a fact by the use of evidence. Anything that can make a person believe that a fact or proposition is true or false. It is distinguishable from evidence in that proof is a broad term comprehending everything that may be adduced at a trial, whereas evidence is a narrow term describing certain types of proof that can be admitted at trial.”(1)

When applying this to reasonable doubt...

Reasonable Doubt
:If the jury has a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the jury should pronounce the defendant not guilty. Conversely, if the jurors have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.”

What is unreasonable is to disregard established facts which were presented as evidence that clearly point to Casey being guilty of culpable negligence at the very least, simply because it does not meet some imagined criteria of what the Prosecution must present. Jurors need to take everything into account. If Casey is not guilty then something else happened. The story presented by the defense is that she drowned in the swimming pool. Given everything that we know, this would have to be considered a somewhat reasonable alternative for the jurors to have a reasonable doubt. Considering the facts established by the Prosecution it clearly does not pass.

“In the court of law we can not expect a jury to convict a girl just based on her actions during a period of time.”

I have clearly shown that there is physical evidence in her car, computer, and at the crime scene all linking Casey to Caylee’s death, and all showing that this was in no way consistent with an accident. If it was not purely an accident then manslaughter at the least is the only other possibility.

“The killer was never truly identified or the murder weapon. Coroners for the prosecution couldn't even determine the cause of death.”

A verdict must be decided based on the evidence we have, not the evidence we don’t.

Conclusion

While I understand and respect Pros position I have shown why it is unjustified. If there was not enough evidence in this case then I could accept the verdict that was given. But coming to a not guilty verdict in this trial can not be done reasonably without disregarding the facts presented, which itself is unreasonable.

First degree murder is by far the most likely scenario to explain what happened to Caylee Anthony. But Pro and I agree that there is not enough evidence to support this verdict. Manslaughter however is clear. Suggesting anything else is clearly unreasonable.

Voters

First off, it is important to note that there is much more evidence that was not discussed. This debate was not about the case itself but the accuracy of the verdict according to our justice system. As this case has gotten much media attention some may disagree with my contentions but I remind all voters that personable opinion of the resolution is a separate question from most convincing argument.

I’d like to thank Pro for this debate. It certainly has been fun and I wish my opponent luck in the voting and in his career in law.
Debate Round No. 3
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MassDebater255 6 years ago
MassDebater255
Pro, I feel sorry for you...You have been shafted...your arguments were the best, but people cannot separate their emotions from reasoning and logic..the voting system is flawed, and you my friend, have to suffer the consequences.
Posted by huhmasta 6 years ago
huhmasta
I see the debate goes on....This one is for the books, that's for sure.
Posted by caruso56 6 years ago
caruso56
Double_R.....I agree. I would have thought the jury would have figured it out too. I saw the interviews with juror #3 (the woman) and alternate juror. The woman seemed reasonably intelligent, and she did not give any indication of whether she thought Casey was guilty or not, and I didn't expect her to. But if I remember right, the alt juror said he thought she had something to do with it. I would have thought the 12 of them would have agreed with that as well.

Ray.....I know the jurors said they rendered a not guilty verdict because there wasn't any evidence that proved CA killed her daughter. What I don't get is why they didn't think all the circumstantial evidence and CA's behavior didn't even suggest that she had something to do with it. It's not that hard to figure out.

What I meant by stating "I think the term sociopath is often used as a "go to" label given to anyone who acts 'abnormally' " was in regard to the layman. Not a professional psychiatrist. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people being interviewed on the street...."he's a sociopath...she's a sociopath". After reading up a bit on sociopathy and histriopathy, I'm more convinced than before that CA has a histrionic personality disorder. In my personal opinion.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Jurors have spoken to the press about why they found a verdict of "not guilty." The jury foreman had a long TV interview. The presence of the death penalty was not a factor; they never discussed it. They could not make any sense out of the events. They could not understand why Casey Anthony did not report her missing child and went out partying instead. Being totally perplexed, they demanded that the case been proven beyond doubt. Otherwise, they could just pronounce it "confused."

Personality disorders do fit into well-defined categories. Bipolar disorder, with manic highs and lows, is one of the best know. Psychiatric texts define it and prescribe treatments. One of the treatments is a lithium drug that controls the mood swings. People who suffer from bipolar disorder often refuse treatment on the grounds that they think there is nothing wrong.

Anthony is a classic textbook case of sociopathy. An ordinary person does not lie with such enormous ease and facility. An ordinary person would be incapable of ignoring a dead child, regardless of the cause of death. Not every sociopath commits murder, so its true that cases play out differently. That does not mean that there is no such thing as sociopathy. It's a well-defined pattern of behavior. Not every case of lun cancer plays out the same; that doesn't mean lung cancer has no defining characteristics.
Posted by Double_R 6 years ago
Double_R
But why do you think that? The jury had a choice when it came to counts 2 and 3 and they chose not guilty. The fact they only deliberated for about 12 hours shows in my opinion that they did not put much thought into it, but when it comes to the judges instructions they are not hard to understand. I think the 12 of them should have figured it out.
Posted by caruso56 6 years ago
caruso56
My statement was...."The state charged her with murder one as well as the subsequent charges. If that count was not there to begin with, I think she would have served time. I think she got the jury's sympathy because of it."
The one you quoted Double_R, was me not reading what I typed.....I stand corrected.
So, I apologize for that gross inaccuracy.......I worded that all wrong, so please allow me to rephrase.
Yes of course you are right, Casey was brought up on 7 charges. 4 of them misdemeanors, 3 felonies. I am not suggesting the debate is about the M1.
What I meant to say is if she had not been indicted for the M1 charge at all, perhaps the jury would have seen through to a guilty verdict on one of the lesser charges. I don't agree with the jury rendering a not guilty verdict on the 2 other felonies, with the evidence I saw and heard.

Personality disorders are really complicated in my eyes. In my opinion, anyone who's personality is severely atypical, suffers from some sort of personality disorder. Do we typically know what to expect from these people? I think not.......unless they are a text book case. To assume all sociopaths know right from wrong, would be a gross assumption.....don't you think Ray? For the record, Casey doesn't seem to be a sociopath to me at all. I wonder if her affliction isn't a histrionic disorder, which is really more of a manipulator and narcissist's disorder. I think the term sociopath is often used as a "go to" label given to anyone who acts 'abnormally'. Whatever she is......Casey wasn't on trial for a personality disorder, and this just my opinion on the topic.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
caruso, The technical term for a person without a moral compass is a "sociopath." Sociopaths know right from wrong, they just choose not to conform with what is right. I think for the avenge person, the important thing to take away from this is that sociopaths are not apparently evil. They don't go around killing kittens for sport. The reason is that they win by manipulating people, and so they make strong efforts to conceal bad behavior or to rationalize it.

In another thread, someone said that sociopaths amount to 1% of the population. Most do not commit murder. That's not because of conscience. It's because getting caught would be contrary to their self-interest. Casey believed she could get away with it, and she was right.

It's quite possible that no one on the jury ever recognized a sociopath or knew what one was. Hence, they concluded the whole affair just made no sense. Failing to make any sense of it, they felt they could not arrive at verdict of guilty .

Double_R is quite right. She was charged with manslaughter, with a maximum penalty of 15 years. Even if the jury found her guilty of capital murder, the same jury would have to go through a penalty phase of the trial and decide whether or not the death penalty should be applied. Two of the jurors said during selection that they were basically opposed to the death penalty, but could contemplate it as a theoretical possibility. The jury always knew they could prevent the death penalty.
Posted by Double_R 6 years ago
Double_R
"if the state would have charged her with manslaughter, child neglect/endangerment, with holding information.....anything, she would not be free."

You accuse me of being condescending. I pointed out an error of fact. You state that "if" they would have charged her with manslaughter... she would not be free. Since count 2 was manslaughter, they did charge her with it, and she is not free. This would leave me or anybody reading this to question weather you realized this. I do not see how forming an obvious conclusion and questioning you on it is condescending.
Posted by caruso56 6 years ago
caruso56
Dude......please stop your condescension. I know what was clearly laid out at the trial and here, no need to question my comprehension. I'm focusing on specific points. I didn't think it necessary to keep pointing out what we already know.

Because I feel that IS why she's free. The state charged her with murder one as well as the subsequent charges. If that count was not there to begin with, I think she would have served time. I think she got the jury's sympathy because of it.
Posted by Double_R 6 years ago
Double_R
caruso, count 2 was aggravated manslaughter, and she is free. This was also explained very clearly in the debate. Why do you keep suggesting that this whole debate is about count 1?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by ohnoyoulost 6 years ago
ohnoyoulost
bsufan101Double_RTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not show a reasonable alternative for the death, Con showed how it was a murder.
Vote Placed by t-man 6 years ago
t-man
bsufan101Double_RTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never showed that is was resonable that Caylee drowned in the swiming pool
Vote Placed by PARADIGM_L0ST 6 years ago
PARADIGM_L0ST
bsufan101Double_RTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: While, from a legal perspective, I agree with PRO's side of the argument, CON nonetheless debated with blistering logic. Pro could have quite easily established reasonable doubt but neglected to do so. Everything in Con's argument, just like the Prosecution in the actual case, hinged entirely on circumstantial evidence. There was no hard evidence linking her, and even though I "believe" she is guilty, the burden of proof must be met.. Regardless, Con won the debate convincingly.
Vote Placed by Meatros 6 years ago
Meatros
bsufan101Double_RTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I gave the argument to Con - the burden of proof that the Pro seems to believe we have appears to be near impossible to meet in any case. Pro should have sketched out what the BoP entails and fleshed it out. Pro didn't deal with Con's counters to the pool 'plausability' or the 'behavior' or the prosecution (cpu searches, etc).
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
bsufan101Double_RTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not come up with an explanation of the facts that both makes sense and leads to Casey being not guilty. It does require deduction, which the jury didn't want to do, but the logic is inescapable.
Vote Placed by thejudgeisgod 6 years ago
thejudgeisgod
bsufan101Double_RTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: NEG offered a nicely unified and well-rounded legalistic argument (which is exactly what aff asked for) Aff's spelling and grammar was atrocious. Both parties were cordial. Aff offered no sources; so I have only his logic to rely on, which was lacking. NEG wins. Best of luck to you both in futue debates.
Vote Placed by baggins 6 years ago
baggins
bsufan101Double_RTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: No alternative is able to explain all the evidence on record. Absence of evidence for planning and actual mode of crime means that full punishment for murder is not applicable. Yet a lower punishment appears to be mandated.