Caylee's Law

Sorry, this is ridiculous. And I'm done with laws named after kids. It's already illegal to kill kids. That'll do.

1988RedT2 wrote: Thirty years I've been a registered voter and not once called to jury duty. I can hardly wait...

I've never made it past sitting in a big, hot room with a billion other unlucky people. I'd rather not be on a jury. My joke was always to say something like "I'm sure the police wouldn't have arrested him if he wasn't guilty of something". In my case it was supposed to be a joke, though.

I was glad to see the jury do it's job in spite of all the emotion involved in the case. Sure the prosecution made her look like a monster, that's part of their job. But the didn't prove beyond all doubt it was her. I had the opportunity to sit on a jury for a shooting a few years ago and everyone I served with took the job very seriously, as I would hope a jury would if I was ever brought before one.

We will obviously never know what happened, but from what I saw of the case the prosecutors never made a convincing case for first degree murder, which is what the system requires them to do.

In reply to Wally:

Exactly. But it didn't stop a bigillion people from deciding she did it and got away with it. I'll agree that some of the story was suspicious, and there were a lot of unanswered questions, but if they couldn't prove it, how are people that weren't even there qualified to make the opposite judgement?

We are a country of armchair quarterbacks. We all know what an inept jury should have. We know the CIA killed Kennady with the mob and Castros help. We wouldn't have let Mookie Wilson's hit roll between our legs and lose the world series. Pretty much anyone in this country does something unpopular the bandwagons come out of storage so we can pile on them and hit the streets proclaiming their incompetance.

In reply to Wally:

You make me sad... Because it's true. Now Casey has death threats against her and is going to have to change her name because all these people know for sure that she did it even though a jury that knew a lot more about it than us couldn't convict her. I'm not saying I think she didn't do it, I'm just saying NOBODY can legitimately say they know she did or didn't. I know you know that, but I'm repeating it for the benefit of others. Now, more related to the subject of this thread, I do think it was a crime that they didn't report the daughter's disappearance in a reasonable time frame, so maybe we do need a law about that that would provide for a more severe punishment.

I understand the threats against her, but we've become so lazy we just threaten the nearest Casey Anthony. Even if he his a man, with living kids. The he named TWO of his sons Casey Anthony as well so maybe some kind of punishment is in order anyway.

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/specials/weirdflorida/blog/2011/07/one_mans_curse_his_name_is_cas.html

It seems to me that we want absolutes in this country- black or white, guilty or not. We want a proverbial smoking gun, video evidence, or something seemingly iron clad to ensure that no mistakes are made. Mistakes are and always will be made, that is clear. That is both what's good and bad about our justice system. Do I think she's guilty? Yes, but of what I am not sure. Her behavior is suspicious in a gigantic way- partying for a month and tattoos as a cover up tactic...please. You have to be living on fantasy island to buy that load. In the end, they didn't have enough solid evidence to convict "beyond a reasonable doubt"

Exactly: 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. That doesn't mean there is NO doubt.

Having once been a witness in a murder trial (long story), I saw first hand what type of evidence is needed. Nothing I saw in my (admittedly limited) exposure to the Anthony trial could be considered concrete proof.

I also am of the opinion that the whole thing was a terrible tragic accident and that Anthony girl is a sleazebag who saw an opportunity to remove the albatross from her neck.

Yes, a terrible tragic accident with the body buried near her property. Somedays, I don't get you guys; I would consider anybody that did what she did to be a monster, way before the fact of either she doing or not doing the deed. (BTW, this thread isn't really about the "law" suggested to be introduced, that died on the first page).

I also like it of how (for instance, picking on you curmudgeon) you are allowed to have your opinion of how it was a "terrible, tragic accident" (which there is no proof to support) vs people like myself not being allowed to have the opinion she is a monster. Weird. You also happen to skip over the part where if they hadn't gone for the death penalty (maybe second degree murder), there is a good chance she'd be in jail right now.

Fact 1) She lied about the nanny (which she is being sued for)

Fact 2) She didn't tell anyone the kid was missing

Fact 3) Her mother "changed" her story to protect her daughter

Fact 4) The body was found buried close to her property. Speculation of 4) Yes, somebody else decided to bury the body there because that would make sense insert rolling of eyes here

Fact 5) Totally coincidental that beyond searching for chloroform, she also deleted facebook posts that could be seen as incriminating. Yea, she isn't hiding anything.

If we follow any sort of thought process, the signs point to foul play of some sort, aided by the mother. None of it points to an "accident" besides the lady's word. So, she is either mentally disabled or said monster. And I'm willing to bet which one she is.

SVreX wrote:

dankspeed wrote: <I'd rather have one educated person who has a depth of knowledge about the law judge me as opposed to twelve people who may or may not know what they're supposed to do.

Oh look- another scary statement! Juries don't judge- you do understand that, right? What the jury is supposed to do is hear the case, and follow the instructions of the court. They are not supposed to be lawyers.

SVreX, Your failing to see my point. Quite often those twelve people disregard what the judge has told them what to do and what not to do( considering evidence they shouldn't or getting on social media sites). They may say they understand but sometimes they just don't listen or choose not to. Atleast with a judge you're assured he understands the law.

But you're not sure he'll follow it. With 12 jurors, if one doesn't follow it you have 11 others to set them straight. The judge can pretty much do what he wants. I'd rather have the jurors myself.

The blunt fact remains that the jury could not agree that she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We can call them dumbasses or scuzzballs etc all day long, just remember this: they KNEW they were going to be harshly judged for their decision yet they chose to go ahead with it. Let that one sink in for a minute, hitemp.

As I said, I think it was a terrible tragic accident which she decided could free her of the albatross around her neck. Didn't tell anyone she was missing? Lied about nannies? Buried so near the house? She's obviously not too smart. Yeah, I agree she's a sleazebag monster no matter what. That speaks volumes of the values instilled in her by her parents.

Her mother tried to cover up stuff? See the statements of Joy Behar (of The View), she said she would gladly lie under oath to keep her kids out of jail in the same circumstances.

FWIW, I think she should have gone to the slammer for, if nothing else, perjury. I also think the prosecutors stuck with murder 1 when they should have had a pretty good idea the evidence wasn't strong enough to support that.

In reply to dankspeed:

Have you been on enough juries to be able to say people disregard the judge often? I was a juror on a rotten case and everyone took it seriously enough that we let an obviously bad guy go even though we all knew something really rotten was going on. I think you underestimate how seriously people take the job.

The jury/judge pair is a check. You've got a judge to be lenient to you (assuming no insane mandatory sentences) if a jury convicts you for something you shouldn't be convicted for, and you've got a jury to protect you from a judge who automatically agrees with whatever a prosecutor (who are often practically coworkers/buddies with the judge) says.

I'll take our system over most others. Japan, for example, convicts more than 99% of the people that go before a judge, as opposed to more like 70% here. Erring on the side of letting bad guys go is a good thing, IMO.

Juror #8: It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth. I don't really know what the truth is. I don't suppose anybody will ever really know. Nine of us now seem to feel that the defendant is innocent, but we're just gambling on probabilities - we may be wrong. We may be trying to let a guilty man go free, I don't know. Nobody really can. But we have a reasonable doubt, and that's something that's very valuable in our system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it's SURE. We nine can't understand how you three are still so sure. Maybe you can tell us.

bravenrace wrote:

mndsm wrote: Because that would make entirely too much sense.... Who wants to be logical in situations like this?

Would you by chance be of the female persuasion?

You do know that more than half of the jurors were of the female persuasion, right?

I didn't follow it in the news. I really don't care about the outcome. If the jury says she isn't guilty, then she isn't. End of story. Her being a monster is irrelevant. The death being an accident is irrelevant. The prosecution screwing up the case is irrelevant. She isn't guilty. You can armchair quarterback it to death, but she isn't guilty.

As far as the people wanting the judge to be all powerful, ever been to traffic court? I don't know about where you live, but the good old boy network around here is alive and well, and you ain't one of the boys.

As far as the Caylees Law, that's just stupid. It's just another stupid law to make the naive feel better about a crappy situation. I'm sure there are several on the books now that would apply, but that just reeks of vindictiveness to me. The prosecutor lost, leave it at that.

EastCoastMojo wrote:

bravenrace wrote:

mndsm wrote: Because that would make entirely too much sense.... Who wants to be logical in situations like this?

Would you by chance be of the female persuasion?

You do know that more than half of the jurors were of the female persuasion, right?

It was bound to happen after we let them vote. (runs and hides)

Yeah, whatever happened to 'barefoot and pregnant'? (rapidly changes all personal info and moves)

In reply to dankspeed:

You know Judges are elected right? So the same people we pick a jury from decide who is a Judge.

MrJoshua wrote: In reply to dankspeed: You know Judges are elected right? So the same people we pick a jury from decide who is a Judge.

Fortunately, I did a little checking before I jumped on this as absolutely wrong. Supreme Court justices are appointed, not elected, as are judges in CA, ME, NJ & VA. I assumed this was the case nationwide. I see that I am incorrect and that some judges are in fact elected. Amazing!

Judges in 23 states are selected on the basis of merit. Only the remaining 23 states use the election process.

So the correct statement is that SOME judges are elected.

In reply to 1988RedT2:

I stand corrected. I will give you one guess how they are picked in my state (FL).

MrJoshua wrote: In reply to 1988RedT2: I stand corrected. I will give you one guess how they are picked in my state (FL).

Yeah, I kinda figured.

I've only ever lived in NJ and VA, and both of those states appoint their judges, so that would explain my tendency to assume it was like that everywhere.

Marcia Clark, former OJ prosecutor presents a case for why the jury should've convicted anyway. Read it here.

Umm, yeah, but many of them are appointed by people who are elected.

A little less direct, but still influenced by the voters.