Well, he has a unique definition of "tragedy."
CASEY ANTHONY: what do you think will happen.
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
If the DP is the rule of law, no one group should get preferential treatment from its application.
This is not perfect analogy, but I'm against the police in certain situations giving out speeding tickets. But attractive women shouldn't more frequently get warnings versus men because of their sex either.
The point is that the law should be applied equally and whether the DP is a just and moral sentence is another argument completely.
I disagree. If a law is unjust on its face then we should not work to have it applied more equally where we find socioeconomic or gender-based disparities. We should work to eliminate it entirely.
Guilty of providing false information to law enforcement officers...yeah, that seems to be pretty much what was supported by the evidence.
I'm surprised. I expected her to be found guilty of manslaughter, because of the emotionalism surrounding the case.
I'm surprised. I expected her to be found guilty of manslaughter, because of the emotionalism surrounding the case.
i fucking give up on the system.
now watch, they'll interview some of the jurors and they'll all say "well, we thought she was guilty but we didnt believe there was enough evidence."
holymotherfuckingshit. i give up.
now watch, they'll interview some of the jurors and they'll all say "well, we thought she was guilty but we didnt believe there was enough evidence."
holymotherfuckingshit. i give up.
That's how the system works. People shouldn't be convicting on "gut feelings" but on the strength of the evidence, and it just wasn't there in this case.
I agree, yt...
Common sense seems to be missing here. If she is not guilty.. there has to be an explanation for what happened.
What is it?
Common sense seems to be missing here. If she is not guilty.. there has to be an explanation for what happened.
What is it?
bitch should have fried - i hope she gets shanked in prison
There may have to be an explanation, but that is emphatically not what a murder trial is for.
The criminal justice system has nothing to do with Perry Mason.
The defense has to prove nothing. That's the job of the prosecutors, and they failed.
As far as I can tell from the presentation of the evidence as reported in the media over the last month, the jurors in this case reached a fair and honest verdict. I didn't expect that.
The prosecution way overreached on the charges, probably because of public pressure and outrage surrounding the killing. Does anyone know, was there ever any early negotiation between Anthony's lawyers and the state? You'd think they'd have offered her a chance to plead to a lesser charge than murder in the first degree. Now they have to live with having screwed the pooch.
The criminal justice system has nothing to do with Perry Mason.
The defense has to prove nothing. That's the job of the prosecutors, and they failed.
As far as I can tell from the presentation of the evidence as reported in the media over the last month, the jurors in this case reached a fair and honest verdict. I didn't expect that.
The prosecution way overreached on the charges, probably because of public pressure and outrage surrounding the killing. Does anyone know, was there ever any early negotiation between Anthony's lawyers and the state? You'd think they'd have offered her a chance to plead to a lesser charge than murder in the first degree. Now they have to live with having screwed the pooch.
The problem is what they call the CSI Effect. Jurors expect MASSIVE amounts of DNA and other high tech proof.
If a child disappears, the mother parties for 31 days, and then when the stench of death in the car is enough to make the grandparents call the police and the mother LIES to the police (and lies for TWO YEARS about a so called non existant nanny)....don't tell me there isnt enough to believe. I don't need DNA to use my reason. She killed that child and got away with it.
If a child disappears, the mother parties for 31 days, and then when the stench of death in the car is enough to make the grandparents call the police and the mother LIES to the police (and lies for TWO YEARS about a so called non existant nanny)....don't tell me there isnt enough to believe. I don't need DNA to use my reason. She killed that child and got away with it.
Yes lets fry people based on purely circumstantial evidence. That would be a great legal system.
Circumstantial evidence is not the flimsy thing people seem to think it is.
My son just texted me. "If you want to murder someone, go to florida to do it."
My son just texted me. "If you want to murder someone, go to florida to do it."
Probably. They might have been able to convict her or negotiate a plea for killing the child. They chose instead to charge her with first degree murder and ask for the death penalty, with virtually no evidence to support the charge.
The prosecution failed here.
I doubt she'll see much, if any, prison time.
Maybe she did kill her daughter and get away with it, but the prosecution failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
I still think she's guilty, but you know what? I wasn't on that jury and I didn't have to make that determination. I didn't have to deliberate it, examine all the evidence and testimony, and take someone's life into my hands, so it's really not my place or anyone else's to judge.
I'd rather we let guilty people walk than send innocent people to death row. Erring on the side of caution and all that.
Similar threads
