Tuesday, July 5, 2011


Mrs. G posted a question on her Derfwad Manor blog last week asking if readers valued justice or mercy.  I said I go back and forth, I aways have.  One of the most frustrating things for me in law school was to learn how many cases are resolved based on rigid and out of date standards.  How frequently lies are told and evidence is suppressed or made invalid.  And worse, how frequently mercy (and common sense) was bypassed because the system is not about fairness but the "rule of law."

Today have seen the result of another aspect of our legal system.  One where those of us observing the legal maneuverings of the Casey Anthony trial were shocked to hear that the verdict could possibly be anything but guilty.  And yet she was found not guilty on all counts relating to the death of her child.

I can understand that the standard may not have been met to find for pre-meditated murder.  I do not see how the jury could find reasonable doubt that she was involved in the mistreatment or neglect of her daughter leading to her death (manslaughter.)

The standard is reasonable doubt - not no doubt.  I don't think this was a case of jury nullification as in the OJ Simpson case.  I think that the defense threw out so many other scenarios, most of them outrageous and none with any factual foundation, that they somehow got caught up in the what ifs.

I suspect the mercy part is going to show up in the sentencing and she will be let go without any further jail time.  So sad for all of us that the system, as good as it can be, failed us again.


Judy said...

I was surprisingly heartbroken when I heard the verdict. It's hard to see her get away with this - all that lying from her and her family with no retribution. They have manipulated everyone for three years.

knittergran said...

AAAACCCCKKKK! Mrs. G is writing again and I didn't know! Where is she?
And re: the trial. I don't think they should be on tv. Turns the trials into a circus, with lawyers and participants acting for the cameras.