It took today's jury verdict in the Casey Anthony case to roust me out of my summer doldrums (and create this Blog posting). The disclaimers have to be legion. Nobody rejoices when a precious child dies needlessly, regardless of who is responsible.
Justice in our judicial system sometimes produces results the public finds abhorrent. But it is still justice. Jurors are too often underestimated and too often pigeon-holed and unfairly characterized.
1. After it's all over, the "reasonable doubt" bar is a high one, but necessary for capital murder cases. What's surprising to me is that the prosecution believed they had cleared this bar even though they couldn't tell how the toddler was killed or when or where.
2. The media is raring to tear apart the jurors for their unexpected verdict. And they are foaming at the mouth over the seemingly wise initial decision by jurors to avoid the media lynching at this time.
3. Pundits "convicted" Casey almost solely on the basis of her immature, inappropriate behavior during the weeks and months following the Caylee's disappearance. She did not behave the way an innocent mother should.
4. When it was first announced this morning that a verdict had been reached, the media jumped to the wrong conclusion and began declaring that it had to mean guilty on the most severe charge and was speculating on capital punishment. Imagine their chagrine when the 3 most severe charges were all returned as "Not guilty".
5. The defense attorney in his statement to the press following the verdict provided a clear analysis of how capital punishment ends up distorting "justice" in some murder cases, like this one.
7 comments:
As ever Dennis your points are clearly detailed, and admirably simple in expression. I hope to learn to think and write as clearly as you.
What strikes me is that the prosecution lacked motive and weapon (something you mentioned, albeit not in those terms) yet went to trial. one wonders if this is not shoddy negligence, and if so, does that suggest that justice was indeed not served. I mean, if the prosecution did a poor job pressing its case, then was justice for the victim really attained? What about the implied social contract with the state that leaves the general citizenry (who hopes and trusts in the efforts of the officials and investigators to persevere in the championing of the interests of the victims) - in that contract did the prosecution fail?
i do recognize your point was more driving at the inter-relationship between media sensationalism contrasted with the execution of justice (or, the media bent versus the merits of the system). As such my preceding points are not really topical.
While the forensic scientists on CSI and NCIS can figure out cause of death every time, alas in the real world sometimes they apparently can't. Which I suppose is why many cases are never brought to trial. But when there has been such a nationally covered search for the girl and obvious unanswered questions about the the mother's behavior, the prosecutors went to trial even when they didn't have bullets in their gun.
And you are also right that MOTIVE might have been a big sticking point. The only nod in that direction by the prosecution was the claim that Casey wanted a freer lifestyle than she could live while caring for a child.
The other media rant that galls me is that the pundits are claiming they have a better take on Casey's guilt than the jury. They claim the jury was shielded from damaging evidence and testimony that "proved" her guilt but that the pundits, alas the entire world did know. How preposterous. Do these pundits have zero understanding of the law? Unless someone shows how and why the judge decided to derail the case by disallowing acceptable evidence, we have constitutional protections that come into play in such criminal cases. Apparently even many people with a law degree can choose to ignore these protections when it doesn't fit their prejudices.
Ah, but Dennis, you assume the pundits are in the business of erstwhile pontification, when in fact they are the employees of media outlets whose money is made from the garnering of a following base and advertising monies. The very media axiom, "if it bleeds it leads" is not just a statement about the garish interests of humanity, but a reflection on the fact that media outlets favor the sensational or inflammatory for the sake of a following.
There is another attitude with journalistic circles that suggests if it is happening it is newsworthy, and everyone is entitled to know (read, freedom of the press at the expense of any freedom to privacy, justified on the rhetoric of a nebulous extra-constitutional "right to know"). But if such were true then there would be countless, untold stories of the daily goodwill of on and off duty officers, or fellow community members helping each other out, or civic-minded efforts. Such does not bleed, and so such shall never lead.
I wonder if the attitude of the pundits is more a reflection of their journalistic arrogance or the unspoken pressure to incite followers for their attention.
I could be wrong but i think it is generally considered bad form for me to do this but because the youngest is demanding attention I am posting a link to a New Yorker article that examines the Willingham Trial and Death Sentence in Texas, specifically how recent years have shown scientific advancements exonerates the man, despite what even the most stalwart pundits would say on the issue.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all
I think what i am saying is that this Anthony case is an example of where the guilty may very well have gotten away with murder, but in the absence of legal proof what might in the future prove to be another Willingham exception was averted. Is it better to let 10 guilty go free just to ensure one innocent as well goes free? Yes. The very value of life inherent to the spirit of the law demands it.
Post a Comment