-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Casey Anthony found Not Guilty.
- Thread starter Tayla
- Start date
well if you don't live in America I could understand it but if you do live in America then yeah that's kind of sad considering thats all that's been on the news for 3 straight years
Posting to say I strongly, strongly agree with both these posts.
The defense claims the girl drowned in the family pool and they dumped her body with the duct tape.
The prosecution claims Casey killed her.
There is no evidence to really prove these two claims, ergo it's one persons word against another and regardless of the trustworthiness of those involved.
Is it most likely that she did kill her daughter? I'd have to agree. But I'd also hold several doubts about the issue - like I posted earlier people have been known to do completely irrational things without being guilty of any crimes.
I agree with everything you said. But ultimately, "very likely" isn't beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a very exacting standard. You essentially have to prove that there is no reasonable explanation other than murder. It just wasn't there.
The other problem is that the prosecution went for broke and went for the Murder 1 charge. When you put all your eggs in the Murder basket, if you fall short, the jury might come back with not guilty. The prosecution's whole theory was that it was intentional, so if the jury doesn't think there's enough evidence for Murder 1, they might not convict of anything since the prosecution's whole "she wanted to kill her daughter because she was cramping her style" theory doesn't fly for manslaughter, since it would have to be that it was an accident.
No matter how you slice it, it's sad, because a little girl is dead, and nobody was brought to justice for it.
Well, the only stat I can find was for 1998 and in that year 224 children under the age of 1 were murdered in America. Since apparently only around 5-10% of criminal cases go to trial, that leaves around 10 - 20 court cases about a baby murder. Some of these will be more straightforward than others. I dont know any details of this case, I havent heard about it except in this thread, but the fact that this woman has been found not guilty makes it seems to me like this is quite a rare event.
I cant imagine why anyone would feel this case is not newsworthy or discussion worthy.
Have a nice day.
I cant imagine why anyone would feel this case is not newsworthy or discussion worthy.
Have a nice day.
How does the number of cases make it any more news worthy?
It's evidently not rare, with one of these happening at least every second day, but even if it were, it affects a ridiculously small number of people. It's not like the person is dangerous at all (she killed a 1-year-old baby, it's not like she's a serial killer).
So she was proven not guilty, this doesn't affect me, or anyone else in this thread, whatsoever. It is not even discussion worthy as every second post explains "I haven't heard about it except in this thread."
It's evidently not rare, with one of these happening at least every second day, but even if it were, it affects a ridiculously small number of people. It's not like the person is dangerous at all (she killed a 1-year-old baby, it's not like she's a serial killer).
So she was proven not guilty, this doesn't affect me, or anyone else in this thread, whatsoever. It is not even discussion worthy as every second post explains "I haven't heard about it except in this thread."
I am sorry billymills but I would consider anybody who killed somebody else of any age intentionally a dangerous person
It was news worthy in the fact that it has been going on for 3 years and they finally made a decision and it was one that everybody did not expect
It was news worthy in the fact that it has been going on for 3 years and they finally made a decision and it was one that everybody did not expect
"Not guilty" != innocent
The prosecution didn't prove that she killed her daughter beyond reasonable doubt. This is the justice system working. If there is even a single alternate explanation that fits the evidence then they can't call her guilty. They had to prove that the defendant, and only the defendant, could have killed the child. And they didn't. I'd rather see a criminal walk free than a potentially innocent person put to death by the media.
Ok, the trial's over. Now we can bring the troops home, or fix our "national" debt, or improve our country's working conditions, .. oh wait, never mind. Nancy Grace is on again to trick people into victimizing someone else!
This is incredibly accurate. Although I think akuchi meant that if she was a father, there wouldn't have been media attention because he would have been sentenced to death so quickly that there would be no time to generate a hubbub. Akuchi may be right since this behavior would be dismissed by the media as "expected" of a man but "exceptional" in the case of a woman. It probably wouldn't have gotten this much media attention if it were a man, but the trial would have turned out much differently as well.
so....she's not a single mom any more? How YOU doing Casey?
Serious post: In criminology, there is the "wedding cake" model theory of criminal trials, developed by legal scholar Samuel Walker. The cake has four layers: 4) misdemeanors, 3) felonies, 2) serious felonies, 1) "celebrated" cases (i.e. high-profile). As you move up the cake, as stakes grow higher, cases receive greater scrutiny and examination of the facts, as more resources are poured into prosecution and defense teams (for those who can afford expensive lawyers). So it's with paradoxical irony the highest-profile cases are the closest reflections of how the adversarial justice system was intended to work.
Since the dynamics of criminal trials are different at each layer of the cake, it may be the attentive pressures of celebrated cases may prove too crushing on cases based solely upon circumstantial evidence—causing jurors to second-guess themselves the prosecutors were reaching too far. I mean, look at OJ.
My point is that while Casey's "hot party chick" background undoubtedly influenced why her case received "trial of the century" magnitude of attention, there may be other dynamics in play to her acquittal.
I have never heard about this case I don't want to hear about this case why is it getting so much attention.
However I will say this: if anyone intentionally harms a child (physically, emotionally, sexually) then they deserve a punishment far worse than death or life in prison. I'm not talking about telling your daughter, "no more ice cream!" and then she goes and cries. I'm talking about telling your child they are the scum of the Earth and don't deserve to breathe. I'm not a religious person but I hope that anyone who has ever harmed a child goes to hell and suffers something beyond human understanding.
However I will say this: if anyone intentionally harms a child (physically, emotionally, sexually) then they deserve a punishment far worse than death or life in prison. I'm not talking about telling your daughter, "no more ice cream!" and then she goes and cries. I'm talking about telling your child they are the scum of the Earth and don't deserve to breathe. I'm not a religious person but I hope that anyone who has ever harmed a child goes to hell and suffers something beyond human understanding.
what makes it different to harming an adult in your eyes?
What has a child ever done to deserve to die? Sure there's been many innocent murder victims in the past, but a child hasn't done anything wrong to anyone. The acts of adults are what shape children into whatever they are today. If a child was molested as a kid by someone then (s)he's going to have anger issues throughout life. There's just no damn good reason to harm a kid. :c
Children are far more capable of evil than one may think. There was a case a while back where an 11 year old murdered his father's girlfriend and her unborn child with a fucking shotgun.
There are obvious exceptions to both but age is not a sole determinant of innocence.
There are obvious exceptions to both but age is not a sole determinant of innocence.
I think he's talking about someone far younger than 11. More like 3 or 4, where they have little to no self-control and really cannot be held accountable for their actions. At age 11 one knows what one's doing even if their brain's not very developed. Anthony's daughter was less than three, so she can be assumed to be innocent.
Eleven you're more than capable to know the results of your own actions. While that child was obviously psychotic I'm sure there must have been a cause for such actions. Whether he knew it or not. Yes, I was referring to young children, as DetroitLolcat pointed out.
ma bad then
If something is rare or unusual it is only common sense it will be news, of course the number of cases matters.
The judicial system in a country is obviously important to anyone in that country. Cases where an unusual outcome happens are good to discuss because in doing so you might find out why the outcome was something other than what you expected, and then you might be able to decide whether or not something needs to be done about this.
Ok it turns out the kid is older than a baby.. Yeah, I didnt read this shit, it doesnt really interest me, but I can at least understand why it would interest other people. There is more important shit going on here than whether or not Tom Cruise is having an affair with Prince Charles.
Have a nice day.
While I do live in America, I don't watch the news except for the daily colbert show report, and not very often as I don't have satellite TV and my internet is really quite slow.
Based on the evidence, what possible alternate explanation could have fit the evidence? The kidnapping thing was made up from whole cloth. While there was some forensic evidence that suggested suffocation (the duct tape wasn't air tight I admit), there was nothing that could have suggested drowning. If you're looking for a plausible alternative explanation other than "Casey did it", there really isn't one based on the evidence. The problem is that the evidence strongly implies that she did it, as opposed to irrefutably proves that she did it. But like I keep saying, irrefutable proof doesn't often materialize in criminal cases.
Put it this way - there was decent evidence suggesting murder, but NO evidence suggesting anything else.
I think the evidence pretty much rules out any other person COULD have done it beyond reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt does not entail "hey a stranger could have done it for no random reason without any evidence just because". There were only 4 people who reasonably can be determined to have killed the child - the grandparents, the brother, and Casey. You can pretty much rule out the grandparents because they initially reported that Casey and Caylee were missing. The brother simply had nothing linking him to the crime.
They, imo proved that by showing that by ruling out every plausible person who could have done it.
