Postings on social media sites suggest people think the justice system let two-year-old Caylee Anthony down because a Florida jury didn't convict Caylee's mother, Casey, for her death.
Those are emotional postings—a sentiment we understand but with which we must disagree.
When our outrage over a child's possible homicide overrides our constitutional requirement that the state prove allegations against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, we become a vigilante society.
Everyone recognizes the tragedy of a toddler's death, even the twelve jurors who found Casey Anthony not guilty Tuesday afternoon. But according to an alternate juror in the trial, Russell Huekler, the state didn't even prove whether Caylee was a victim of homicide.
"There was so much reasonable doubt," Huekler said, on "Good Morning America" Wednesday. "The prosecution did not present the evidence to show that Caylee had been murdered. They did not show a motive. Finally, they did not show how Caylee had died."
Caylee's body had six months to decompose between the time of her disappearance and the time her body was discovered. That made it nearly impossible for the state to prove how Caylee died, according to statements from prosecutors after the verdict.
Twelve people sat in the courtroom each day hearing all of the evidence against Casey Anthony. They were best qualified to decide whether she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A jury of Anthony's peers judged her to be not guilty, which is a far cry from innocent.
Casey Anthony is obviously a liar. The jury found her guilty of four misdemeanor counts of lying to police. The public has good reason to question Casey Anthony's character in light of her bar-hopping and partying lifestyle in the months after Caylee's June 18, 2008, disappearance.
But being a liar and an irresponsible adult should not be enough to convict a person of murder.
Most of America became fixated on this case because of the real-life drama, but brief reports on the each day’s proceedings were mere glimpses into the complex legal wranglings.
The sensational events surrounding Casey Anthony's trial took center stage in news coverage. Even the tabloid TV shows covered the trial and its circus-like sideshows, such as the fistfight that erupted in the line of people waiting to get into the courthouse to watch the trial and the turmoil over whether Casey was a victim of incest.
Casey Anthony's attorney chided the media Tuesday for its sensationalized reporting, and perhaps he was correct. Many of the talking heads clearly sided with the prosecution, and some journalists' emotions compromised their objective reporting.
In the end, circumstantial evidence wasn't enough to convict the twenty-five-year-old mother of the victim.
We still hope for justice for Caylee Anthony, but justice should not come at the compromise of constitutional principles of being proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Finally, some level-headed commentary.
Posted via email from PARKXVI | Comment »
No comments:
Post a Comment