Does anyone else here not like this (particular) media response to the Casey Anthony verdict?
- Thread starter Kryzantine
- Start date
Recommended Videos
To all the people of this thread she got off on aggravated child abuse.
We know she neglected her child and didn't report her missing, WHAT THE FUCKING SHIT! I can accept there may not have been enough evidence to convict her - although it seems fairly obvious her or a family members of hers are the only people with motive or opportunity- why is she not in jail for child endangerment or manslaughter because she didn't report her child being fucking gone while she partied.
Theres a time for reasonable discourse, but this isn't it. The justice system is made to prefer letting the guilty go rather than imprisoning the innocent, but we know she broke laws. Why does she get off just because we couldn't pin her on murdering her child, she is still guilty of gross neglect, fraud, forgery, petty theft and obstruction of justice.
The womans a monster defending her doesn't make you more american or in love with freedom than anyone else.
Edit: The ***** had google records for making chlorophorm, breaking necks and death. Trace amounts of chloroform and evidence of a decaying body (not possible to determine species) was found in her trunk not to mention multiple witnesses who said they smelled what they thought to be a decaying animal in her trunk. That is beyond reasonable doubt for me. I know the courts need more than that, but for an average citizen we KNOW she did it or is hiding a family member who did it.
We know she neglected her child and didn't report her missing, WHAT THE FUCKING SHIT! I can accept there may not have been enough evidence to convict her - although it seems fairly obvious her or a family members of hers are the only people with motive or opportunity- why is she not in jail for child endangerment or manslaughter because she didn't report her child being fucking gone while she partied.
Theres a time for reasonable discourse, but this isn't it. The justice system is made to prefer letting the guilty go rather than imprisoning the innocent, but we know she broke laws. Why does she get off just because we couldn't pin her on murdering her child, she is still guilty of gross neglect, fraud, forgery, petty theft and obstruction of justice.
The womans a monster defending her doesn't make you more american or in love with freedom than anyone else.
Edit: The ***** had google records for making chlorophorm, breaking necks and death. Trace amounts of chloroform and evidence of a decaying body (not possible to determine species) was found in her trunk not to mention multiple witnesses who said they smelled what they thought to be a decaying animal in her trunk. That is beyond reasonable doubt for me. I know the courts need more than that, but for an average citizen we KNOW she did it or is hiding a family member who did it.
While I agree with your post, I feel the need to correct you on this point. In this case, and in all criminal cases that result in acquittal (in the US, anyway), the verdict passed down is "Not guilty" and not "Innocent." The former means that there is not enough evidence to convict, while the latter means that the evidence verifies that the defendant did not commit the crime in question.Kryzantine said:
What we saw here was a particularly strong form of media sensationalism. "This woman is being charged with murder and here are the details on the trial" is a much less exciting story than "This woman is guilty of murder and here are a bunch of people screaming for her blood." Certain forces in the media chose to take the latter path, which is less responsible but more profitable, and as a result, a lot of people decided that she was guilty without all of the evidence.
It should be noted that this article, in addition to implying that Casey Anthony's acquittal meant that she got away with murder, also jumps to conclusions about its key statistic. It might be the case that the lower rate of murder convictions means that more people are getting away with murder. It might also mean that fewer innocent people are getting falsely convicted, or that DAs and grand juries are more zealous now. However, those explanations (and others that I can't think of right now) are less attention-grabbing than the one this article chose to use, and so they got left out.
Yet the state ME (medical examiner, the person who is specifically trained to study dead bodies and determine their cause of death ruled it a homicide. And it was a homicide case against Casey Anthony. The child had been murdered.Dags90 said:
It's better to let 10 guilty men go free, then to have one innocent man spend a minute in jail. That's what our legal system is based on, we must never forget that.
Hasn't she spent like, three years in prison during the trial? That happens to innocent people all the time, especially poor people who can't afford bail.BlackWidower said:
Of course, thinking about that makes people kind of sad.
You're conflating homicide and murder, they're not the same thing.twistedmic said:
She's innocent. that's the decision of the court, and that is the truth as far as any secular authority should be concerned, including you. If she's guilty, then god will punish her, one way or another for all purposes until then she is innocent, as proven by the courts.
Kryzantine said:
She isn't innocent.spartan231490 said:
She is not guilty.
There is a massive difference between the two. Innocent means that she didn't do it. Not guilty means that she could not be convicted based on the evidence given.
Not that this really has anything to do with the topic, but it is just one of my little peeves when people mistake the two.
1: There is a LOT of evidence she did it.
2: The media needs to get over the verdict and forget about it.
2: The media needs to get over the verdict and forget about it.
The South Park fictional defense was actually inspired by Cochran's defense in the OJ Simpson's trial. It never was fictional.Cazza said:
However, I don't know enough about the OP trial to call it one way or another. I do think that the legal system is never going to be perfect and it is better that the occasional murderer is pardoned than innocents be punished for crimes they did not commit. The media should keep their mouth shut.
There was a case close to where I live when a male teacher was accused of sexual harassment (just short of rape, if I remember) against a teenage girl. It was proven that she was lying and that he was innocent, but that took a very long time. But by the time it was over, he had lost his job, it was almost impossible for him to find new employment, and everyone just assumed he was guilty even though it was proven he was not. People harassed him constantly, graffiti on his house, rocks though windows, keyed his car, etc. It got so bad that he eventually had to move to a different state to get away from it. People had decided he was guilty, and even after it was proven he was not they were still determined to make him pay for the crime he never committed.
I can't remember the details of the case, it was years ago, but ever since then if I see a murder or sexual harassment or rape trial, I really hope they pinned it on the right person because the media is going to make sure their life is ruined even if they are innocent.
She's been in jail for about three years during the trial. She has been convicted of several lesser charges, with time served credited to her sentence. I think between time served and good behavior, she's due to be released soon.NightlyNews said:
Just because she's gotten media attention doesn't mean she shouldn't get the same sentencing considerations that other people get.
...and you're saying that's okay?Dags90 said:
Funny how you just end the sentence like that.Dags90 said:
No (I'm a bleeding heart liberal), I'm saying it's being ignored by people and the media because they don't like to think about it.BlackWidower said:
The average time served for homicide in the U.S. is just under six years, according to the Department of Justice.[footnote]http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/PSATSFV.PDF[/footnote] This woman has spent about three years in prison, and she wasn't even convicted of the homicide.
In general i thought it was an unfortunate step for The Daily News to include this statement:
Lets say a city has only one murder this year and the police threw every witness and suspect up on murder charges at the same time thinking "one of these people really did it". Besides being ridiculous (this is hypothetical), if the court system were working perfectly, the conviction rate would be very low. Whereas the solve rate would be %100.
... as well as the headline. The rest of the article was simply stating that the rates of murders being solved was going down drastically. That they connected it to the conviction rate by tying in Casey Anthony is what's sad here and completely destroys the point. You don't want conviction rates to go up or down. You want them to be accurate. It's the solve rate that matters.Kryzantine said:
Lets say a city has only one murder this year and the police threw every witness and suspect up on murder charges at the same time thinking "one of these people really did it". Besides being ridiculous (this is hypothetical), if the court system were working perfectly, the conviction rate would be very low. Whereas the solve rate would be %100.
Actually, she's innocent. We're protected from double jeopardy, so as far as any law, or secular authority is concerned, she's innocent. Which is exactly what I said. Maybe she did it, but as far as any of us are concerned, she didn't. Justice is God's job, us mere mortals must content ourselves with the law, and the law says that she didn't do it.Gxas said: