21
   

Casey Anthony found not guilty of murder

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Fri 15 Jul, 2011 07:13 pm
@firefly,
One other comment I question if the state in their hearts of hearts was of the opinion that Casey was likely guilty of first degree murder instead of a crime such as manslaughter however they still was willing to go after a capital punishment death sentence case.

That fact show questionable morals to say the least,
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Fri 15 Jul, 2011 07:15 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
She died while in her mother's care--no matter which version of events you believe.

The mother didn't call EMS to get the child medical help or notify police of the child's death and the child's body was put in a plastic trash bag and dumped near her home.


Agree still the state was going after a death sentence for what was highly likely to had been manslaughter.
firefly
 
  1  
Fri 15 Jul, 2011 07:36 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Agree still the state was going after a death sentence for what was highly likely to had been manslaughter.

The state was going for first degree murder--which does not necessarily carry the death penalty--because they believed this was a premeditated murder based on the computer searches Casey Anthony made and what they saw as the manner of death (asphyxiation with duct tape).

The jury had the charge of manslaughter available to them as an alternative.

The jury just didn't connect Casey Anthony to her child's death despite the fact that the child was in her care at the time of death--and even the defense acknowledged the child was with her mother when she died.
BillRM
 
  1  
Fri 15 Jul, 2011 07:48 pm
@firefly,
Going after a crime and the punishments for that crime that they as the state was well aware that her actions was highly unlikely to quality her for is morality not defensible in my moral code even if it is in your.

Such great overcharging is highly unethical to say the least.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Sat 16 Jul, 2011 07:54 am

There was and is no evidence
of any death as the result of any crime, in this case.
firefly
 
  3  
Sun 17 Jul, 2011 05:39 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
There was and is no evidence
of any death as the result of any crime, in this case.

You don't find the fact that the child's body was placed in a trash bag and dumped in a swamp a tad suspicious? Rolling Eyes
BillRM
 
  1  
Sun 17 Jul, 2011 07:09 am
It is always nice to find that a law professor agree with me.

Stupid laws passed on waves of emotions have unintended consequences that tend to do more harm then good.

In Florida,the state itself cheerfully lost track of over a thousands children a year placed in it care but it still wish to go after parents for not reporting no matter what the situation a child missing within 24 hours!!!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/caylee_071711.html?page=all


Opinion: Now there's Caylee: Laws of good intentions
Sunday, July 17, 2011 Last updated: Friday July 15, 2011, 5:22 PM
BY JENNY CARROLL
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF LAW AT SETON HALL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, FORMER ACADEMIC DIRECTOR OF THE OHIO INNOCENCE PROJECT AND A PUBLIC DEFENDER. HER WORK FOCUSES ON CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE AND THE ROLE OF JURIES.
The Record

AP To observers outside the courtroom, the verdict seemed wrong. The jury seemed to have failed in their duty and, if one is to believe the most sensational media accounts, freed a murderer.

With no ability to change the verdict, the acquittal sparked a movement to change the law.

Last week New Jersey legislators joined others in several states who are pushing to enact what has been dubbed Caylee’s Law.

A measure introduced by Senate Republican Leader Tom Kean Jr., R-Union, would require a parent to report a missing child within 24 hours.

“Common sense dictates that a parent or guardian who does not to report the disappearance or death of a child in their care should be considered criminally negligent,” Kean said.

Sen. Nicholas J. Sacco, D-North Bergen, has introduced a similarly worded bill.

In some states, measures further require that parents report the death of a child within an hour. A grassroots petition is calling on the federal government to enact a similar law.

The sentiment driving this movement is understandable. A child is dead. Her mother’s behavior while she was missing and in the wake of her death was inexplicable, suspicious, callous, heartless or guilt ridden – depending on who you talk to (or listen to).

Unintended harm

But the law won’t bring the child back. And the passage of a law in the name of the child we mourn may well create unintended harms without protecting future children.

Caylee Anthony is not the first child we, as a nation, have collectively mourned or sought to memorialize or posthumously protect with legislation. One need only to look to the laws passed in the Nineties in the wake of the horrific

murders of Megan Kanka of Hamilton Township, N.J., or Polly Klaas of California.

These laws followed the best intentions – they were designed, in theory, to protect future Pollys and Megans.

But these laws, no matter how well-intended, had bad consequences.

Polly Klaas’s abduction from her own bedroom and murder by a recidivist offender was every parent’s nightmare. In response, California and other states across the nation passed “three strikes” laws – allowing for long — sometimes life — sentences for offenders with two prior felonies. Upon the third conviction, or strike, they were “out.”

The idea was if such a law was in place, Polly would be alive— or future Pollys could be saved from predatory recidivists like the one who took and killed her.

Today, however, California’s prisons are filled with the unintended recipients of three-strike sentences. Addicts and petty thieves fill the prisons, while the state’s economy reels and the judiciary shuts the state prison system down for overcrowding.

The legacy of Megan’s Law, passed following the murder of Megan Kanka, is not much better. Designed to alert parents to the presence of convicted sex offenders in their neighborhood and to prevent such sex offenders from living in proximity to schools and other locations, the law has drained enforcement resources that must now be spent confirming offenders’ addresses.

In many communities, sex offenders can no longer find legal residence, so they live illegally or without fixed address, defeating the purpose of Megan’s Law all together.

But the worst result of the law has been its impact on individuals at the lowest risk of re-offense.

Consider the elderly man convicted 20 years ago of slapping a cheerleader’s backside at a football game. Because he was convicted of a sex offense against a child, he was recently told he had to leave the home he has shared with his wife for the last 25 years because he was in violation of Megan’s Law. His house is 983 feet from an elementary school.

Never mind that he had no previous and has had no subsequent convictions or that his now disabled wife will have to be placed in a nursing home if he is forced to move. The law must be enforced.

Opposition

It is no wonder that in recent court filings across the country, sheriff associations, victim’s rights organizations and prosecutors’ offices oppose the law, admitting that it has not reduced recidivism rates among sex offenders and instead has created a bureaucratic nightmare for the folks charged with enforcing it.

There are many ways to think about Caylee’s Law. On the one hand, a complete failure to respond to Caylee’s story – her brief life, the confused tragedy of her death – seems as inhumane as anything that the state of Florida accused her mother of.

On the other hand, a response based on emotion rarely creates good law. Surely, we owe it to Caylee that any law passed in her name should be a good one.

Thinking about such a law, several risks are obvious.

When, exactly, should a parent report a missing child? At the 24-hour mark? Instantly? What effect would such reports have on already overburdened law-enforcement agencies?

How would the police cull true tragedy from the all-too-common parental fear resulting from missed curfews or miscommunication?

Would parents grieving the loss of a child pause to report the death to the police in the required hour? If they were overwhelmed by grief in that first hour, would the law excuse them or only insult their injury with a felony trial and potential conviction?

When should the hour be calculated? Could a parent who failed to check hourly on a sleeping child be convicted if the child died in the night and the parent only reported in the morning upon discovering the child?

Would a parent involved in the death of their child actually be motivated to report the crime regardless of the existence of the law? And if they did, can this law withstand constitutional scrutiny ?

Self-incrimination

The Fifth Amendment protects each of us from forced confession and self-incrimination in the face of an all-powerful state. The Founders knew that forcing the accused to confess or report his or her own crime was unreliable, dangerous and offensive to liberty, long before Innocence Projects — organizations that seek to exonerate the wrongfully convicted — confirmed how dangerous forced implication can be.

Caylee Anthony is dead. My heart feels the loss of this child I never knew as I tuck my own children into bed each night. The good people calling for the enactment of Caylee’s Law undoubtedly feel something similar, if not the same emotion.

Together, we mourn the toddler who will never lose her first tooth or enter her first spelling bee or win her first soccer game or grow up.

The collective pain we feel at the loss of this child is so strong that we try to create laws to protect all those like her. But as good as our intentions, and as strong as the hearts that would lift this cause, the law, like those named for the children before Caylee, will not protect her or children after her.

It will not produce the justice we hope, but it will create unintended harm in its wake.

We owe Caylee more than our hearts, more than our sorrow, more than our fears. We owe her, and all the unnamed children like her, a law that is well-reasoned, not just well meaning.

OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Sun 17 Jul, 2011 10:03 am
@firefly,
David wrote:
There was and is no evidence
of any death as the result of any crime, in this case.
firefly wrote:
You don't find the fact that the child's body was placed in a trash bag
and dumped in a swamp a tad suspicious? Rolling Eyes
"suspicious" counts for exactly NOTHING.
Anyone can suspect anything.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Sun 17 Jul, 2011 10:09 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
It is always nice to find that a law professor agree with me.

Stupid laws passed on waves of emotions have unintended consequences
that tend to do more harm then good.
That 's very true; bad news and ofen unconstitutional, based on frenzied thawt.





David
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Wed 20 Jul, 2011 12:50 pm
Quote:
o help prove that she killed her 2-year-old daughter, Casey Anthony’s prosecutors told the jury in her case that she Googled “chloroform” 84 times. As it turns out, that’s wrong. Anthony used the search term only once; the count of 84 came from a glitch in the software that tallied her searches. The software’s designer discovered this error in June, yet though he says he immediately alerted police and offered a corrected report, the prosecutors didn’t correct themselves before they concluded. In other words, when jurors went to deliberate Anthony’s fate, they had information that falsely implicated her —and the prosecution team knew it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor.html

SHOCKING!

not
BillRM
 
  1  
Thu 21 Jul, 2011 05:19 am
@hawkeye10,
If true the lawyers involved should be disbar.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Thu 21 Jul, 2011 05:33 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
If true the lawyers involved should be disbar.
I wish u 'd stop doing that.
Y don 't u write "disbarred" ?

Obviously, u know better.

P.S.:
I AGREE with u that if it is true,
then the guilty lawyers shoud be disbarred (or suspended).





David
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Thu 15 Sep, 2011 07:34 pm
Quote:
(CNN) -- Casey Anthony owes authorities just under $98,000 for the costs of investigating the disappearance of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, in 2008, a Florida judge ruled Thursday.
The decision means prosecutors are set to recoup less than one-fifth of the more than $516,000 that they had sought. The state had argued that if it were not for the 25-year-old Orlando woman's lies, investigators wouldn't have had to expend the time and money to find her daughter's body.
They searched for five months, eventually finding Caylee's skeletal remains in woods less than a mile from her grandparents' Orlando home.
Orange County Superior Court Chief Judge Belvin Perry Jr. found Anthony is liable for expenses incurred from July 15, 2008, when Caylee was reported missing, to September 29 of that year, when authorities ended their missing-person case and opened a homicide investigation.


http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/09/15/florida.casey.anthony.costs/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

How long will be be before we again charge inmates for the cost of running the prisons? Not long I think. The American "justice" system sucks.
firefly
 
  2  
Thu 15 Sep, 2011 10:15 pm
@hawkeye10,
Why shouldn't Casey Anthony be responsible for these costs? She sent police and investigators on a wild goose chase because the child was never missing--she knew all along the child was dead and she also knew where the body was dumped. I'm sorry the judge didn't find her liable for the $516,000 that the state had sought.

The taxpayers are entitled to be reimbursed for the costs of this woman's lies to the police regarding her child's whereabouts.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Thu 15 Sep, 2011 10:19 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
How long will be be before we again charge inmates for the cost of running the prisons? Not long I think. The American "justice" system sucks.


Oh?

The woman daughter ended up dead while under her care and protection and her lies over the matter cause a great deal of cost to the state even if you give her final story, given to us by way of her lawyer opening statement , that the girl die in some no fault accident some credit.

Give everything she should be thankful the courts are only ordering her to pay back a small fraction of the total costs of her actions.

Frankly I would not had wish to be on that jury where reason and commonsense call for a great deal more punishment then the hard evidence would support.

Given everything however I do not think I could had allowed her to had walk away as lightly as she did if I had been on that jury lack of hard evidence or not.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Thu 15 Sep, 2011 10:29 pm
@BillRM,
You re missing the point...are you in favor of our increasingly funding government with bills for services rendered after the fact for services that have traditionally been pay by all through taxes? Do you really want to live is a society that is willing to bill anyone who calls the police or the fire department for instance because they need help?
BillRM
 
  2  
Thu 15 Sep, 2011 10:40 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Do you really want to live is a society that is willing to bill anyone who calls the police or the fire department for instance because they need help?


If you called the police or fire department and knowingly give false information to them that then resulted in a great waste of manpower that is not only a crime as in this case but should result in civil liabilities.

I do not agree that in the case of people getting into trouble on the side of a mountain or whatever that they should paid for the cost of their rescue however this case is more similar to a false call for rescue off that mountain side where the state ran up a large bill looking for climbers that did not exist.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Fri 16 Sep, 2011 12:14 am

If people start getting BILLED
for calling the police, I have a hunch
that thay 'll begin taking personal initiative in such matters instead.
BillRM
 
  2  
Fri 16 Sep, 2011 01:54 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
If people start getting BILLED
for calling the police, I have a hunch
that thay 'll begin taking personal initiative in such matters instead.


Amazing that both you and Hawkeye can come up with being charge for requesting help from the police when the issue clearly have zero to do with such a concept.

Once more guys the issue is lying to the police in such a manner as to cause a great deal of unneeded public expense.

You have every right for example to radio the coast guard for aid at sea however you do not have the right to radio the coast guard and knowingly declaring a false emergency and if you do so I see no reason that in added to criminal penalties you also would need to pay for the cost of having the helicopters and ships responding to your call.

OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Fri 16 Sep, 2011 02:07 am
@BillRM,
It is against federal law -- a felony-- to lie to the FBI.
Therefore, if someone speaks to them,
any imperfection in what he says (or maybe what he fails to add??)
can cost him years in federal prison and a lifetime as a felon thereafter.
Even if u speak in good faith,
who can tell the future qua whether others on a jury will see it as true?

Whatayathink of that ??





David
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/22/2021 at 11:55:59