Usually, I enjoy watching Sean Hannity. He is actually my favorite of the news commentary anchors. I don't watch everyday but when I do I usually agree with what he says. Not today. I totally disagree today.
He and his guests were talking about how the Anthony jury came up with the correct verdict as far as the Constitution and Rules of law are written. They believed the prosecution did a poor job and that the defense did a good job. And they believe that being proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is a good standard.
I do not. I believe that with this circumstantial case the prosecution did a good job of showing that Casey Anthony was the only person who could have committed the murder and that should have been good enough to at least convict her of manslaughter.
I get the idea that the way things are set up makes it harder to convict an innocent person. I understand and can appreciate the reasoning behind that. It makes sense.
But that does not make it right that that same system helped a guilty woman go free.In my personal opinion, if the legal system as it is set up allows even one person who actually murdered a child go free; then something is wrong, wrong, wrong, with that system.
I wish I knew the answer to fixing the problem but I don't. Quite frankly I just am not that smart.
I also wish I could understand why this one bothers me as much as it does. I have followed other cases in which a woman murdered her child but I don't remember becoming emotionally invested in the case. Could it be that in the other cases (Susan Smith comes to mind) the women were convicted of something but not in this case?
I have tried to not follow this case because I realized that I was real emotional about this one. But it was almost impossible to not follow this one.
I was certain she would be convicted; not necessarily of murder in the first, but I thought manslaughter was a sure thing. Which leads me to this question: how can she be guilty of lying to the police but not being guilty of having something to do with Caylee's death? Would logic tell you that she lied about something having to do with Caylee'w death?
And maybe if another logical suspect was presented I could have understood. But there is no way George Anthony did it. Accidental drowning? Really? If that were true wouldn't somebody have mentioned that way before going to trial?
But this outcome is wrong on every level I can think of and I have tried to come up with some way to justify it so I can deal with being emotional over the verdict. But the truth is that I am very emotional about this and I feel I have somehow been changed by this case.
But there is absolutely no reason why I should be as bothered by this as I am. I don't think I convey through this forum how bothered I am. And logic tells me that I should be bothered and maybe even a little miffed by this; but I have found for me that my emotions don't necessarily deal in logic.
So I am trying to figure this out so I can deal with it. I don't like hearing about a child being hurt in any way. I truly believe that pedophiles should have their privates removed and live the rest of their lives in prison. I believe child abductors also should be put away for the remainder of their lives.
I believe that a parent killing their child is the worst crime that can be committed. A mother murdering her own child is almost unimaginable thing ever to me.
I'm not sure how much of things I was told early on is true but I believe I was told that it was suggested to my Mom that I be put into an institution because I would never be able to do anything for myself. I have heard that other mother's of disabled children have done just that. When I have heard of that I feel like I could have been a, for lack of a better word, "disposable" child or an unwanted child, just thrown away. Luckily, I have a Mother who never believed that.
But I believe that Casey did just that. And I believe she did that for the worst reason possible. Casey did it because Caylee was inconvenient for her. I believe Casey just did not want to grow up and got rid of Caylee so that she did not have that responsibility.
And in cases like these,there will no doubt be another one, the Constitution and Rule of law should not be greater than justice for a child who could not defend herself.
Rob,
ReplyDeleteI stumbled across your blog, and felt the need to reply.
The following is the State of Florida Definitions of Manslaughter.
782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.--
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
Jury instructions definition of culpable negligence:
Rob,
My questions for you up to this point are:
1. In the prosecutions case, when did Caylee die?
2. In the prosecutions case, where did Caylee die?
3. In the prosecutions case, how did Caylee die?
A.
Please do not say duct tape and chloroform. If you actually followed the case, the medical examiner could find no cause of death. And the movement of the remains by Roy Kronk made it impossible to know exactly how the remains were left in that location.
B.
Susan Smith was convicted because she changed her plea / defense to Not Guilty Due To Mental Defect which admitted she committed the crime.
C.
How can you jump from lying to the police to murder? If you were diagnosed with cancer, would you want your doctors to make such a leap while planning treatment or would you rather they take the time to fill in the gaps with actual knowledge.
D.
It has always, from day one, been the defenses position that this was an accidental drowning. This dates back to previous court hearings beginning in September of 2008.
The defense did not try their case in the media though.
E.
What you are repeating is the theory from Mr. Ashton in the prosecutions closing argument. So let us convict someone on a theory.
F.
It would seem to me that the State of Florida’s prosecution team and the Orange County Sheriff’s Office did more to let you down than anyone. Do not be angry at our Constitution or our Judicial System far to many people have lost their lives protecting such things.