I’ve been following the Casey Anthony trial off and on throughout the past six weeks—not with the ardent fervor that many have dedicated to the process, but definitely with an interested eye and, at times, a disbelieving ear. My semi-inattentiveness is largely in part due to the fact that I don’t have the time to dedicate watching such a senseless tragedy play out in the court of law, and partly due to the blundering antics of the main defense lawyer, Baez. And now, the verdict is in: Casey Anthony is not guilty of first degree felony murder.
Can’t say I didn’t see that one coming, folks, and it centers around three little words: (1) BURDEN (2) OF (3) PROOF. Yes, I am in law school. Yes, I do intend to one day make criminal law my calling. And yes, I think there is a good chance Casey Anthony killed her daughter. I say that not to assert that I am (a) smarter than you or (b) somehow more intuitive than you. However, for those that aren’t in law school (and even for some of those who are, or who are practicing attorneys), the general consensus is that the jury got it wrong.
A jury, made of TWELVE civilians, who sat through six weeks of grueling, time-consuming testimony, admissions of evidence, and fuckups by Baez, somehow managed to get it wrong? No, they did not. They got it right, despite overwhelming odds that they would convict her through preconceived notions of her guilt. If anything, I’m shocked they were able to get over these notions, as Ms. Anthony had already been convicted by public opinion. I’m shocked they actually managed to serve honorably and fulfill their obligations as jurors as they had been instructed to do. I’m shocked they chose their duty over their emotions. I’m shocked they managed to walk away with the message regarding burden of proof despite Baez’s repeated attempts to mangle this case.
In short, I’m shocked our legal system actually worked as it was supposed to do. And pissed that others would question our legal system and jurors over the outcome of a trial that played out exactly as it should. To convict someone of first degree murder, prosecution was charged with showing intent, deliberation, and premeditation BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Oh yeah, showing a cause of death constituting murder would also help. They sought to introduce intent by showing how Casey wanted to lead the life of a single woman. They showed searches of “neck-breaking” and “chloroform” on Casey’s computer to show premeditation. Same can be said for deliberation. However, what the prosecution failed to do was show how Caylee died. They introduced pictures of Casey Anthony partying to heighten the jury’s negative opinion of her. They showed duct tape on her skull. Unfortunately, the body was too badly composed to show a cause of death.
And because of that, Casey Anthony walked. Casey Anthony certainly deserves no mother of the year award. But, at the same time, the state of Florida was REQUIRED to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee was murdered, and that Casey Anthony was to blame. The state of Florida, and ANY state in America, is REQUIRED to do so in a case that will take away your liberty for the rest of your life, and possibly end your life. The reason I’m okay with this? If I were arrested tomorrow for something I did NOT do, I would hope that regardless of how much the media portrayed me to be a monster, regardless of how much citizens wanted to hate me, and how heinous the crime I was accused of committing was, that I would receive a trial in which the prosecution had to show beyond a reasonable doubt that I was responsible for said crime.
We lock up prisoners each year who are not guilty of the crimes for which they were convicted. Because juries did not adequately weigh the seriousness of their duties, because they wanted to get home to their families, or because they didn’t like the defendant’s face. The jury got it right this time.
Even though I still don’t like Casey Anthony’s face.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar