Justice?
Wednesday, July 6, 2011 at 5:38PM As I have been discussing the justice system, it seems appropriate to talk about the Casey Anthony case and her acquittal. While most people were convinced of her guilt, there was never a lot of evidence. What should be done in such a case? As Judge Andrew Napolitano said in his Facebook feed: “Our system of justice is set up in such a way that sometimes the guilty go free, but the innocent will not be punished and no one will be punished, even the guilty—without the government satisfying a jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
So with this important point in mind, maybe this is the best possible verdict of the charges laid against Ms. Anthony, given the lack of evidence. Let there be no doubt, I am as unhappy with this as anyone, but we live in an imperfect world where perfect knowledge does not exist.
Often the issue is not justice, but winning the case and the prosecutor's future political career. If the prosecutor had instead charged Casey with reckless endangerment, the conviction would have been assured. In fact there might not have even been a trial, as she would have been a fool not to have accepted such a plea bargain. Even innocent people sometimes accept a plea bargain because the consequences of a conviction are so devastating.
It is very clear that Ms. Anthony is guilty of something. Her defense attorney as much as admitted it by saying that her daughter Caylee drowned. Leaving a two year old unattended around a pool is reckless. Since Ms. Anthony cannot be tried again for the death of her daughter, she can never be charged with the crime she unambiguously committed. While this is a needed protection from a rogue prosecutor trying the same person over and over, in this case it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
For a complete discussion of the verdict, if you have not had enough already, click here.
Reader Comments (2)
There is also the simple possibility that a total accident occurred in the presence of a responsible mom, but the responsible mom then totally freaked, panicked, whatever. And, with that in mind, even to charge with reckless endangerment, without proof would have led to a sad day for true justice if she received such a conviction. It does not matter the percentage possibility. It matters that NO evidence showed she was a murderer. To convict anybody, even a guilty person (God being witness), would be more a travesty than the travesty under scrutiny, if no evidence proves the guilt. Deuteronomy 19:15-21 is a very good example of God's view on the burden of proof being on the accuser, and even with "eye for eye" consequences for pursuing conviction without proof.
I appreciate the blog post, Dennis.
Kelly could be right, but a responsible mom, would not bury her daughter in the woods and then lie about it. I agree that the fact of an accident does not prove irresponsibility, but all the other factors in the case do. But Kelly is correct and unambiguously is too strong.