Things to ponder as a result of the Casey case

Well now we have it, Casey Anthony found not guilty. It will split public opinion down the middle but it has raised
very profound questions which shall rock the American legal and political systems to its core. Why?
because the question of the death penalty as a proper and fitting resolution to certain criminal acts. Is it time to drop
this dragonian and fruitless ultimate saunction?
Moreover, is it time to drop the jury system of justice? Is it reliable? can it be influenced by the above? Therefore,
the hope and expectation of justice can not be served when the DP is in place.
Is it time for the professional jury to step in?
These, and many more questions will arise from this verdict. I'm annoyed at the verdict, but i'm not surprised.
The justice system is now on trial here when a jury fears the result of their verdict more than doing the right
and just thing. Let 'right be done' has surely went down the tubes.

I do think that having the death penalty in place does sway some jurors to find not guilty.

In this case the jurors looked at the evidence made available to them and decided that there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict.

Hunger4Unger wrote:I do think that having the death penalty in place does sway some jurors to find not guilty.

In this case the jurors looked at the evidence made available to them and decided that there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict.

I think that this jury selection was made up of many anti-DP or selective-DP and it was swayed by the fact that even though the
prosecution presented a stirling case, they did not offer the who, the how or the when.
In any DP case, I would suspect that any jury would need a suspect to be more or less caught red handed and get a full confession in
order for them to give a DP. This was not present in this case.
However, I really can't get my head around them not going for a lesser conviction based on the hugh raft of circumstantial evidence.
I thought the state's evidence was over whelming and deserved a proper and fair custodial sentence. It now seems that Casey may
walk this thursday. Sorry to say but justice and deterence was clearly absent from this jury verdict.

marxman wrote:

Hunger4Unger wrote:I do think that having the death penalty in place does sway some jurors to find not guilty.

In this case the jurors looked at the evidence made available to them and decided that there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict.

I think that this jury selection was made up of many anti-DP or selective-DP and it was swayed by the fact that even though the
prosecution presented a stirling case, they did not offer the who, the how or the when.
In any DP case, I would suspect that any jury would need a suspect to be more or less caught red handed and get a full confession in
order for them to give a DP. This was not present in this case.
However, I really can't get my head around them not going for a lesser conviction based on the hugh raft of circumstantial evidence.
I thought the state's evidence was over whelming and deserved a proper and fair custodial sentence. It now seems that Casey may
walk this thursday. Sorry to say but justice and deterence was clearly absent from this jury verdict.

Hi marxman, I see what your saying , but surely she could have been found guilty of neglect? Not reporting her daughter missing for 31 days and/or not reporting an accident (I know, I know, a load of bullsh*t lol), do these not constitute neglect? Or have I got this wrong? this wouldn't require the DP? Oh I don't know. Maybe they were just in rush to go home, some of them didn't want to be there to start with, maybe they were just homesick! It worries me they reached the verdict very quickly and never asked to see any evidence, how strange is that?

wjk wrote:

marxman wrote:

Hunger4Unger wrote:I do think that having the death penalty in place does sway some jurors to find not guilty.

In this case the jurors looked at the evidence made available to them and decided that there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict.

I think that this jury selection was made up of many anti-DP or selective-DP and it was swayed by the fact that even though the
prosecution presented a stirling case, they did not offer the who, the how or the when.
In any DP case, I would suspect that any jury would need a suspect to be more or less caught red handed and get a full confession in
order for them to give a DP. This was not present in this case.
However, I really can't get my head around them not going for a lesser conviction based on the hugh raft of circumstantial evidence.
I thought the state's evidence was over whelming and deserved a proper and fair custodial sentence. It now seems that Casey may
walk this thursday. Sorry to say but justice and deterence was clearly absent from this jury verdict.

Hi marxman, I see what your saying , but surely she could have been found guilty of neglect? Not reporting her daughter missing for 31 days and/or not reporting an accident (I know, I know, a load of bullsh*t lol), do these not constitute neglect? Or have I got this wrong? this wouldn't require the DP? Oh I don't know. Maybe they were just in rush to go home, some of them didn't want to be there to start with, maybe they were just homesick! It worries me they reached the verdict very quickly and never asked to see any evidence, how strange is that?

Hi WJK, Absolutely! If you drive and hit a pedestrian and drive off and fail to report an accident, you would expect to be charged
and convicted of a serious criminal offence, and rightly so! However, Casey as you say, states that her child drowns in a pool and
then concocts a pack of lies to cover it and fails to report it HERSELF and a jury of her peers clears her of any wrongdoing!
What kind of message has this sent out to young parents wanting a life changing experience?