Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Casey Anthony found not guilty!!

medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2011 3:00:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Justice was served today when a jury of her piers, found Casey Anthony not guilty in the murder of her daughter. There are going to be alot of angry people, but in watching this trial, I am convinced that our justice system worked today. It decided that the case against her was so weak, that a human life, the life of an American citizen, was not going to be taken by the state, who sought the death penalty.
I'm not sure that she's innocent and I'm not convinced that she had nothing to do with it. She obviously lied, many times, and her behavior was beyond explanation, but the important thing is that the state did not prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that she was the killer, and that is the standard that we must demand of our government before allowing it to take away the life and liberty of American citizens.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2011 4:27:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/5/2011 3:00:46 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Justice was served today when a jury of her piers, found Casey Anthony not guilty in the murder of her daughter. There are going to be alot of angry people, but in watching this trial, I am convinced that our justice system worked today. It decided that the case against her was so weak, that a human life, the life of an American citizen, was not going to be taken by the state, who sought the death penalty.
I'm not sure that she's innocent and I'm not convinced that she had nothing to do with it. She obviously lied, many times, and her behavior was beyond explanation, but the important thing is that the state did not prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that she was the killer, and that is the standard that we must demand of our government before allowing it to take away the life and liberty of American citizens.

This, this, this. It's kind of irritating seeing people being interviewed and making comments like, "That lady should be DEAD today! I'm a taxpayer!" Being a taxpayer does NOT give you any such right. The court process did it's thing and the jury found that the state didn't have enough evidence. Being a taxpayer does not mean you should angrily demand that the standards of evidence we have in place be bypassed so you can see someone get fried.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2011 4:30:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Even though most of us still believe she did it, you have to remember that this is the justice system actually working. There wasn't enough evidence. It's better to let the guilty go free than to punish the innocent.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2011 4:34:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It is this type of thing that has made me shift my stance on the death penalty. I believe OJ is guilty and I believe that the whole glove thing was preposterous, (leather shrinks in the cold), however, it is better to let a guilty person go free than an innocent person be condemned.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2011 4:36:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/5/2011 4:34:07 PM, BennyW wrote:
It is this type of thing that has made me shift my stance on the death penalty. I believe OJ is guilty and I believe that the whole glove thing was preposterous, (leather shrinks in the cold), however, it is better to let a guilty person go free than an innocent person be condemned.

And what would killing them solve?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2011 4:36:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's sort of an odd position though. I think most of the people who agree that the state didn't have enough evidence would admit that there's definitely something funny going on with her account(s).
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2011 4:39:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/5/2011 4:36:06 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/5/2011 4:34:07 PM, BennyW wrote:
It is this type of thing that has made me shift my stance on the death penalty. I believe OJ is guilty and I believe that the whole glove thing was preposterous, (leather shrinks in the cold), however, it is better to let a guilty person go free than an innocent person be condemned.

And what would killing them solve?

I don't think many people would argue that a deceased victim would somehow "feel better" to see justice served, so I think it would have to be more of a punishment thing. But that doesn't exactly make sense because once someone's dead, that's it as far as the non-Religious state is concerned. You would think that without any religious assumption, a lifetime in jail would be more of a punishment.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2011 4:41:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/5/2011 4:39:19 PM, Denote wrote:
At 7/5/2011 4:36:06 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/5/2011 4:34:07 PM, BennyW wrote:
It is this type of thing that has made me shift my stance on the death penalty. I believe OJ is guilty and I believe that the whole glove thing was preposterous, (leather shrinks in the cold), however, it is better to let a guilty person go free than an innocent person be condemned.

And what would killing them solve?

I don't think many people would argue that a deceased victim would somehow "feel better" to see justice served, so I think it would have to be more of a punishment thing. But that doesn't exactly make sense because once someone's dead, that's it as far as the non-Religious state is concerned. You would think that without any religious assumption, a lifetime in jail would be more of a punishment.

Which doesn't solve anything either.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2011 4:43:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/5/2011 4:39:19 PM, Denote wrote:
At 7/5/2011 4:36:06 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/5/2011 4:34:07 PM, BennyW wrote:
It is this type of thing that has made me shift my stance on the death penalty. I believe OJ is guilty and I believe that the whole glove thing was preposterous, (leather shrinks in the cold), however, it is better to let a guilty person go free than an innocent person be condemned.

And what would killing them solve?

I don't think many people would argue that a deceased victim would somehow "feel better" to see justice served, so I think it would have to be more of a punishment thing. But that doesn't exactly make sense because once someone's dead, that's it as far as the non-Religious state is concerned. You would think that without any religious assumption, a lifetime in jail would be more of a punishment.

I agree that a lifetime in jail would be more of a punishment, it's just that it's so expensive.

Also the Death Penalty should be more liberally used.

Murderers should be executed unless there is some special circumstance like maybe the offender was mentally ill or something along those lines.

Then they should be immediately put to death within a matter of weeks or even days, especially when there is no shadow of a doubt they are guilty.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2011 4:44:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/5/2011 4:41:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/5/2011 4:39:19 PM, Denote wrote:
At 7/5/2011 4:36:06 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/5/2011 4:34:07 PM, BennyW wrote:
It is this type of thing that has made me shift my stance on the death penalty. I believe OJ is guilty and I believe that the whole glove thing was preposterous, (leather shrinks in the cold), however, it is better to let a guilty person go free than an innocent person be condemned.

And what would killing them solve?

I don't think many people would argue that a deceased victim would somehow "feel better" to see justice served, so I think it would have to be more of a punishment thing. But that doesn't exactly make sense because once someone's dead, that's it as far as the non-Religious state is concerned. You would think that without any religious assumption, a lifetime in jail would be more of a punishment.

Which doesn't solve anything either.

I'm just saying, even if you were taking the "punishment, not compensation" stance, that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense either.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2011 5:23:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/5/2011 3:11:38 PM, interrogator wrote:
Medic ! This is wild. Oh this is not over by a long shot. You havent heard
the last of this one. Holy cow.

It is unless they find someone else to try, or one of the psychos outside the courthouse kills her.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2011 5:27:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/5/2011 4:27:31 PM, Denote wrote:
At 7/5/2011 3:00:46 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Justice was served today when a jury of her piers, found Casey Anthony not guilty in the murder of her daughter. There are going to be alot of angry people, but in watching this trial, I am convinced that our justice system worked today. It decided that the case against her was so weak, that a human life, the life of an American citizen, was not going to be taken by the state, who sought the death penalty.
I'm not sure that she's innocent and I'm not convinced that she had nothing to do with it. She obviously lied, many times, and her behavior was beyond explanation, but the important thing is that the state did not prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that she was the killer, and that is the standard that we must demand of our government before allowing it to take away the life and liberty of American citizens.

This, this, this. It's kind of irritating seeing people being interviewed and making comments like, "That lady should be DEAD today! I'm a taxpayer!" Being a taxpayer does NOT give you any such right. The court process did it's thing and the jury found that the state didn't have enough evidence. Being a taxpayer does not mean you should angrily demand that the standards of evidence we have in place be bypassed so you can see someone get fried.

Thank you...nobody likes that the baby got killed but two wrongs don't make a right
Most of those people out there have nothing to do with the family anyway, they're operating on just emotion and don't see the bigger picture.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2011 5:30:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/5/2011 4:30:10 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Even though most of us still believe she did it, you have to remember that this is the justice system actually working. There wasn't enough evidence. It's better to let the guilty go free than to punish the innocent.

I'm in that group that believes she probably did it, but you're right, the system worked and the evidence was weak and all cirumstancial.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2011 5:34:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/5/2011 4:34:07 PM, BennyW wrote:
It is this type of thing that has made me shift my stance on the death penalty. I believe OJ is guilty and I believe that the whole glove thing was preposterous, (leather shrinks in the cold), however, it is better to let a guilty person go free than an innocent person be condemned.

I just changed my view not long ago after reading An Innocent Man. This case would have changed my view anyway. I find it difficult to accept that many people get convicted on this type of weak case.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2011 5:41:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/5/2011 4:43:33 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 7/5/2011 4:39:19 PM, Denote wrote:
At 7/5/2011 4:36:06 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/5/2011 4:34:07 PM, BennyW wrote:
It is this type of thing that has made me shift my stance on the death penalty. I believe OJ is guilty and I believe that the whole glove thing was preposterous, (leather shrinks in the cold), however, it is better to let a guilty person go free than an innocent person be condemned.

And what would killing them solve?

I don't think many people would argue that a deceased victim would somehow "feel better" to see justice served, so I think it would have to be more of a punishment thing. But that doesn't exactly make sense because once someone's dead, that's it as far as the non-Religious state is concerned. You would think that without any religious assumption, a lifetime in jail would be more of a punishment.

I agree that a lifetime in jail would be more of a punishment, it's just that it's so expensive.

Also the Death Penalty should be more liberally used.

Murderers should be executed unless there is some special circumstance like maybe the offender was mentally ill or something along those lines.

Then they should be immediately put to death within a matter of weeks or even days, especially when there is no shadow of a doubt they are guilty.

Short of a confession, how can we be so absolutely convinced that there is no other evidence out there, that we're willing to allow the government the right to take the life of an American citizen??
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2011 5:44:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/5/2011 4:44:07 PM, Denote wrote:
At 7/5/2011 4:41:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/5/2011 4:39:19 PM, Denote wrote:
At 7/5/2011 4:36:06 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/5/2011 4:34:07 PM, BennyW wrote:
It is this type of thing that has made me shift my stance on the death penalty. I believe OJ is guilty and I believe that the whole glove thing was preposterous, (leather shrinks in the cold), however, it is better to let a guilty person go free than an innocent person be condemned.

And what would killing them solve?

I don't think many people would argue that a deceased victim would somehow "feel better" to see justice served, so I think it would have to be more of a punishment thing. But that doesn't exactly make sense because once someone's dead, that's it as far as the non-Religious state is concerned. You would think that without any religious assumption, a lifetime in jail would be more of a punishment.

Which doesn't solve anything either.

I'm just saying, even if you were taking the "punishment, not compensation" stance, that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense either.

The person is dead, there is no punishment. The only thing to be gained is revenge.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2011 5:47:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Short of a confession, how can we be so absolutely convinced that there is no other evidence out there, that we're willing to allow the government the right to take the life of an American citizen??

I'm not an expert in forensics but when you have witnesses, the suspects fingerprints in the victims blood, etc, you can be sure.

I also wouldn't be opposed to executing rapists, kidnappers, etc.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2011 9:45:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/5/2011 4:36:06 PM, FREEDO wrote:
And what would killing them solve?

This has always been my stance. Punishment almost never makes up for the crime... the argument "so they can never do it again" holds some weight, but most crimes don't put people away indefinitely and certainly don't work to rehabilitate them.

My facebook page was full of people scorning the justice system and the accused Anthony. No one is talking about evidence, they are just making wild claims about "who did she fvck to get out of that" and such. People tend to mob up on those who are accused.

I remember in 9th grade, a story started circulating in the beginning of the day about this kid who supposedly was trying to "touch" someone's younger brother. By lunchtime, the whole school knew, and the tougher kids started walking by him and punching him. He was out of school the next day for good... I always wondered whether or not it was a rumor or really true, but I never forgot how people tend to mob up on someone based only on a rumor. People just want to see the accused burn no matter what. It's really sick actually.
kfc
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2011 10:07:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I hate the obscene amount of coverage the story got on all the major news networks. How many people honestly cared about the trial for as much as they covered it? There are ~ 16,000 murders a year in the united states, why was this one so special?
I must have seen the story mentioned hundreds of time's and never heard a mention of other big stories like "Indiana Supreme Court Shreds 4th Amendment"

http://www.dailypaul.com...
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 2:10:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/5/2011 4:30:10 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Even though most of us still believe she did it, you have to remember that this is the justice system actually working. There wasn't enough evidence. It's better to let the guilty go free than to punish the innocent.

Well then we might as well abolish the CJS entirely. Can't convict an innocent if you don't convict anyone.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 2:13:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/5/2011 10:07:58 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I hate the obscene amount of coverage the story got on all the major news networks. How many people honestly cared about the trial for as much as they covered it? There are ~ 16,000 murders a year in the united states, why was this one so special?
I must have seen the story mentioned hundreds of time's and never heard a mention of other big stories like "Indiana Supreme Court Shreds 4th Amendment"


http://www.dailypaul.com...

Does every other murder case involve the criminal partying after their child's death, finding a child's body decomposed in the swamp, and everyone knowing she's guilty but still walking free? I dont think thats your average murder case.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 8:36:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/5/2011 5:41:48 PM, medic0506 wrote:
that we're willing to allow the government the right to take the life of an American citizen??
What bloody right has any government to take anyone's life ever? Part of what makes patriots so bloody scary is this kind of attitude! It implies that had she been an illegal immigrant or just from a non-american country she is open season for anyone waving the magic wand of government (especially if it is the american government)
Sorry to jump on you like this as you obviously weren't thinking about what you saying, but its issue that you can say something so horrific but not even realise it.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 8:52:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The case against Casey Anthony, who had little to no forensic evidence to back up their claims, and perhaps little refutation of the science that proved Anthony not there, was weak. But I can't understand how her trial has garnered so much attention from the media, to the point that it has been compared to O.J.Simpson's trial....Personally, there is no trial in the modern century, other than that of the McKinley preschools, that match the fame and attention that trial received. Not only do we have a celebrity on the stand, but iconic moments: the car chase along the Bronco, the famous incident with the glove, Fuhreman's lie on the stand, and under oath, and so on, that make it famous. Casey Anthony is....Casey Anthony, and her trial was little more than a story of a kidnapping, murder, and accusation. O.J.Simpson's trial, however, had style, much like the Lindbergh trial itself.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 9:14:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/6/2011 2:13:11 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 7/5/2011 10:07:58 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I hate the obscene amount of coverage the story got on all the major news networks. How many people honestly cared about the trial for as much as they covered it? There are ~ 16,000 murders a year in the united states, why was this one so special?
I must have seen the story mentioned hundreds of time's and never heard a mention of other big stories like "Indiana Supreme Court Shreds 4th Amendment"


http://www.dailypaul.com...

Does every other murder case involve the criminal partying after their child's death, finding a child's body decomposed in the swamp, and everyone knowing she's guilty but still walking free? I dont think thats your average murder case.

She's a liar and a horrible person, but prosecution didn't prove her to be a murderer. If you can't prove her guilty, how can you say that you know she's guilty?? I agree that she looks guilty, but looking guilty, and not having any other explanation does not give the state the right to kill or incarcerate someone.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 12:34:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/6/2011 9:14:47 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/6/2011 2:13:11 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
At 7/5/2011 10:07:58 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I hate the obscene amount of coverage the story got on all the major news networks. How many people honestly cared about the trial for as much as they covered it? There are ~ 16,000 murders a year in the united states, why was this one so special?
I must have seen the story mentioned hundreds of time's and never heard a mention of other big stories like "Indiana Supreme Court Shreds 4th Amendment"


http://www.dailypaul.com...

Does every other murder case involve the criminal partying after their child's death, finding a child's body decomposed in the swamp, and everyone knowing she's guilty but still walking free? I dont think thats your average murder case.

She's a liar and a horrible person, but prosecution didn't prove her to be a murderer. If you can't prove her guilty, how can you say that you know she's guilty?? I agree that she looks guilty, but looking guilty, and not having any other explanation does not give the state the right to kill or incarcerate someone.

You can never prove anything in court. You want DNA evidence? DNA can be wrong. You want to know cause of death? Autopsies can be flawed. There's always a chance of innocence, so under the logic that we cant convict someone that we're not 100% sure about, we would let all murderers go free.

So we have to make reasonable inferences based on the evidence we have. A reasonable inference based on the evidence is that Casey is guilty.

Its worth noting that she was convicted on 4 counts of lying to police. If you are lying to several police officers, you probably did something wrong...
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 12:43:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Circumstancial Evidence is still evidence. The jury was not instructed as to the legal meaning of "beyond and to the exclusion of reasonable doubt." BV is right. If the way the jury analyzed the case is indeed the correct method then the system would be close to 100% ineffective and all methods would be indicted. Proving cartesian certitude is not the burden of the State.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 1:37:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/6/2011 12:43:02 PM, CiRrK wrote:
Circumstancial Evidence is still evidence. The jury was not instructed as to the legal meaning of "beyond and to the exclusion of reasonable doubt." BV is right. If the way the jury analyzed the case is indeed the correct method then the system would be close to 100% ineffective and all methods would be indicted. Proving cartesian certitude is not the burden of the State.

But all the prosecution had was conjecture and circumstantial evidence. Everything that the prosecution argued in court (the skeletal remains belonged to Caylee and there was duct tape on her skull; Casey lied to police about certain things; Casey denied murdering Caylee; Casey wasn't going to win any mom of the year awards) didn't do anything to prove Casey killed Caylee. They couldn't even prove how Caylee died. The prosecution tried to make the jury as emotional as possible because they knew they couldn't win based on evidence. It didn't work.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 1:57:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/6/2011 1:37:48 PM, Nags wrote:
At 7/6/2011 12:43:02 PM, CiRrK wrote:
Circumstancial Evidence is still evidence. The jury was not instructed as to the legal meaning of "beyond and to the exclusion of reasonable doubt." BV is right. If the way the jury analyzed the case is indeed the correct method then the system would be close to 100% ineffective and all methods would be indicted. Proving cartesian certitude is not the burden of the State.

But all the prosecution had was conjecture and circumstantial evidence. Everything that the prosecution argued in court (the skeletal remains belonged to Caylee and there was duct tape on her skull; Casey lied to police about certain things; Casey denied murdering Caylee; Casey wasn't going to win any mom of the year awards) didn't do anything to prove Casey killed Caylee. They couldn't even prove how Caylee died. The prosecution tried to make the jury as emotional as possible because they knew they couldn't win based on evidence. It didn't work.

You're leaving out the chloroform evidence, 31-day late 911 call, decomposition found in her car, lying to police (which means she did something wrong), and motive. That all points to guilty.