The acquittal of Casey Anthony and the subsequent fallout has been interesting and sad to watch. Not that there is anything good to come of this whole mess, but some of the vitriol has been staggering. In light of the events that have taken place I've decided to dedicate at least one post on the subject. This is all just my two cents and playground-level analysis, so take if for what it's worth. I would love to hear your thoughts.
I think there is a tendency for the human spirit to jump to conclusions, especially when we witness something as heartbreaking as the murder of a young, innocent child. We as humans want closure. We want justice. And sometimes that thirst for justice can cloud our judgment and convince us that someone is guilty even though, when we take a step back and attempt an honest look, there is some doubt. The outrage this week at the not guilty verdict borders on hysteria. Calls for Casey to be “fixed” or “sterilized” so she can never again have children seems a bit extreme to say the least. Calling her everything from a witch (on the mild side) to evil or the devil incarnate (on the extreme side) has been eye-opening. But what is the driving force underneath this outrage?
Most of us can't fathom someone wanting to harm or take the life of a child. It goes against our being, our beliefs. We want to quickly find the culprit and bring them to justice, and the punishment needs to be equal to the heinousness of the crime. I don't fault that thinking. I feel the same way. Punishment should be swift and severe. However, it is also important that our quest for justice not cloud our judgment.
Often times it seems that in high-profile, emotionally charged cases such as this one there is a shift in the burden of proof within the realm of public opinion. That burden appears to shift from the state to the defense. No longer is it mandatory that the prosecution prove guilt. The burden shifts to the defense to prove innocence. When the court of public opinion has tried and convicted the accused before the case even makes it to trial it creates a gulf between perception and reality - a gulf representing that shift in burden. And if those in the public realm can't get from perception back to reality there is a disconnect, and I think that is what has happened here.
Outside the courtroom is very different than inside the courtroom. Often I've seen people blame the jury for this outcome. People are quick to say that there is no way they would have found her not guilty. I have to believe that if the people who feel this way are ever part of a jury, especially in a case such as this, that they're able to be objective. That they remember where the burden of proof lies. That they must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. Because outside the courtroom it is easy to get caught up in the frenzy of the swarming sharks. It's easy to listen to the talking heads as they sensationalize every detail. It's easy to only hear what you want to hear. But when you're on that jury you must be rational, fair and honest with yourself. It's a lot easier to find someone guilty when you're sitting on your couch, when you have the luxury of hearing what you want to hear, and you don't have that vote of "guilty" weighing on you.
I hear people say that our justice system is broken, or that it failed in this case. I couldn't disagree more. The prosecution presented their evidence. The defense represented Casey Anthony. Both sides picked and agreed on the jury. And that jury of her peers UNANIMOUSLY and swiftly found there to be enough doubt as to find her not guilty. For many the verdict was inconceivable, but it doesn't mean that the system is broken, or that the jury was made up of idiots. The system worked as it should. After all, it is better that 10 guilty people go free than one innocent person be convicted. It's a price we pay for having an incredibly fair justice system.
As her attorney said after the verdict came in, there are no winners here. A sweet little girl still lost her life, and the need for justice is understandable. But let’s not forget the need for clarity and open-mindedness. The need for an open and fair justice system. And the need for the prosecutor to prove guilt, not for the accused to prove innocence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I realize I'm not always coherent or don't always complete my thoughts, but oh well. I apologize for jumping all over the place. Hopefully, you get what I'm aiming for. :-)
There is nothing anyone can do now to bring back that child or change the verdict. But this is what you can do is not purchase a magazine or book about "Casey's story". You can chose to not watch the made for tv movie or the interviews she will conduct. We do not need to glamorize or condone her behavior inocent or guilty. I don't know if she is a murderer but she is an abusive parent and a liar. This is what you can do!
Patrick - You are spot on. I was a member of a murder jury about 15 years ago, and it was our responsibility to listen to ALL of the facts and conjectures and decide fairly what the proper verdict was. Most people who wanted to see Casey convicted, did not hear the full trial or see the evidence. We've only heard what the pundits have said. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. In this case, they did not prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt."
That is our justice system. And I, for one, am glad that we have it, because what if someday, by some unfortunate circumstance, I am sitting as an accused? I want to know that the jury will be fair and reasonable and not be swayed by mass hysteria.
Post a Comment