Justice

Scott Hardie | July 6, 2011
Today's not-guilty verdict in the Casey Anthony trial (no link is necessary) has provided me with the first real feelings I've had since this whole sad thing started, other than mild irritation/bafflement at why this case has captured such attention when so many others like it happen all the time. Those feelings are: Thank goodness we have a justice system that weighs the evidence, or lack thereof, and renders an appropriate verdict in absence of emotion. If there was a court of social media, she'd have been hung in an hour flat, if the trial managed to be coherent. I have no idea if the woman committed the crime or not, but there sure didn't seem to be enough evidence to prove that she did, and we should all be glad that the right verdict under those circumstances was reached. That IS justice, whether she committed the crime or not.

Societies the world over have had problems with mob justice, and we're supposed to be above that in America. But something in our national composition -- I dunno, our history of raw frontier justice? -- has made us so quick to condemn a woman we've never met, based on circumstantial evidence that we've only heard about third-hand, driven by imagination about what an innocent toddler must have been like. Not just quick to condemn, but livid about the case. Few of us have been touched by the scourge of child abuse or gotten to know someone so cold-blooded as Anthony, so what emotional well within us could this outrage have come from, and what purpose does it serve? Is it just the modern, civilized evolution of bloodsport? Mythological tales of good versus evil have shaped our understanding of life since the dawn of human society, and taught us to root for the triumph of justice over villainy in everything from politics to entertainment, but this isn't some narrative fiction; this is a person's life, and who are we to root against her? Again: Thank goodness we have an impartial justice system.

Justin Woods | July 6, 2011
Thank you Scott I had wonder if I was the only one who shared this belief in our judicial system. It seems to be everywhere I look people are upset with the verdict/outcome and upset at the jury, but there is no one to blame but the DA. At least in my opinion.

Scott Hardie | July 6, 2011
Maybe I have a biased set of friends, but from what I can tell, the outrage is overwhelmingly coming from women. A quick count of my Facebook friends' comments today shows 55 women angry about the verdict and 8 women indifferent about it, but only 9 men angry and 12 men indifferent. Those numbers are in line with the opinions I saw posted over the last few weeks. It's not just mothers who feel this way; some of the angry women have not had children and intend never to have them. I wonder not what it is about the case that so motivates women to feel this way, but what it is that fails to move men, including myself.

Tony Peters | July 6, 2011
What is next for Casey? Probably a Playboy spread and a reality show on Fox

Chris Lemler | July 6, 2011
To me I don't think Casey did it. Ik she lied on the stand but I don't think she could kill her child.

Justin Woods | July 6, 2011
Chris- I don't believe she took the stand. There was no need to with the lack of evidence presented to the jury.

Lori Lancaster | July 6, 2011
[hidden by request]

Joanna Woods | July 6, 2011
Personally, I thought she was guilty at least of neglect, but I do have to say with the way the trial went there really was not enough evidence to convict her. We may not agree with the way she handled herself after her child went missing, but lets face it the woman has mental issues and it was probably a coping mechanism.

Chris Lemler | July 6, 2011
Justin and Joanna I totally agree if she took the stand would it of gone in the other direction

Samir Mehta | July 6, 2011
[hidden by request]

Jon Berry | July 6, 2011
I too, had not heard a thing bout it until the verdict.

Scott Hardie | July 6, 2011
Samir, I've been wondering the same thing for the last few weeks.

Samir Mehta | July 7, 2011
[hidden by request]

Samir Mehta | July 7, 2011
[hidden by request]

Steve West | July 7, 2011
I ran across a website (that I won't link to) that ran a series of racy photos of Casey Anthony in various outfits and poses. It made me ponder if there was anyone in the world who actually believes that she's innocent. The majority of these photos were taken after the death of her child. What reasonable person, after their baby dies, goes out and parties in sexy outfits for a few weeks/months?

Tony Peters | July 7, 2011
See Steve that's what the prosecution expected to be the attitude which is why they didn't do their job and prove that she actually committed the crime....you know with evidence. It is my belief that she is guilty but the DA tried the case in the court of public opinion which as it turns out was the wrong court for the conviction he wanted....

Scott Hardie | July 7, 2011
Samir, right on, everything you said. Some people (including me) have asked why there's so much outrage over this case when there are plenty of other child-abuse, child-murder cases. The simplest explanation is that this one incident could just be a focal point for our collective rage over all of them, and if that's true, then good on us for at least giving a damn after all. It's like the rage toward Bernie Madoff, who did some horrible things, but was hated even more as a symbol of the rich robbing the rest of us blind over the last decade. We can't be mad about every crime or solve every crime, any more than we can be mad about or affect the weather, but it does make a certain sense that some cases would galvanize us to anger when we feel so helpless about others, especially a fairly simple and straightforward case like this one.

Steve, to be honest, I've never understood why callous indifference = guilty. Partying and carrying on after the child is either missing or dead is most definitely abhorrent, cold-blooded, inhuman, abnormal at a minimum, whatever you want to say about it, and it's a good reason for people to hate Anthony. But in a factual sense, how does it prove that she killed the child? It's the same as a suspect who runs when they see police -- it proves they have poor judgment and a reason to fear law enforcement, but in no way does it factually prove guilt in the case at hand. People are weird. They do all kinds of odd things for all kinds of reasons. Please forgive me for bringing up autism, but all kinds of people across the Asperger's spectrum have unusual ways of behaving that the rest of us don't always understand; I could see someone with that condition showing apparent indifference to some wrong that occurred and being misjudged for it by strangers. I'm not saying that Casey Anthony has Asperger's (obviously not) or any other condition; I'm just saying that someone's bizarre behavior after a crime has occurred doesn't seem to me like proof of guilt, although I'm clearly in a minority about that.

Steve West | July 7, 2011
It doesn't prove anything other than she's a heartless bitch. I didn't intend to imply otherwise. It's just indicative of a character that deserves a guilty verdict in the court of public opinion. That seems to be the only place that verdict will be rendered. Those photos are pretty damning.

Samir Mehta | July 7, 2011
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | July 10, 2011
O.J. Simpson has been brought up many times in the last week. People remember his not-guilty verdict, but he was already famous to begin with. Will Casey Anthony be remembered (and reviled) 15 years from now? 5 years?