Friday, July 8, 2011

Casey Anthony and other things we don’t know shit about

Umm . . . am I a bad person for thinking she's kinda hot?
So I don’t know about the rest of you, but I didn’t really have strong feelings either way when the Casey Anthony verdict was announced.  That might sound hopelessly apathetic or callous, but I can’t help my lack of feelings on the subject.  I followed the trial a little bit simply because I found all the bizarre twists to the story to be interesting.

There’s been an uproar, an outcry if you will, over the fact that she was acquitted of murdering her 2 year old daughter Caylee.  It seems that most people think Casey is a sociopath, that she murdered her daughter in cold blood so that she could continue to go out partying without the burden of being responsible for a toddler.

I’ve heard all kinds of shit used to justify the assertion that she’s psycho.  Some note how she seemed to calculate all of her crying moments during the trial.  Some point to how it was odd that she could remain so calm and so poised throughout the majority of the trial.

As for me, I don’t fucking know.

We’ve got this problem in America where we like to judge the hearts and souls of people we’ve never met based on situations on which we have little details.  There’s probably a million people who claim that she’s a sociopath, but how many of them have actually met her?

“Well, Jack, I judge people by their actions!”  That’s all well and good, HTNS, but since when do people always act on what they’re feeling inside?  We act in ways that are contrary to our beliefs, and even contrary to our individual natures, all the time. 

As I’ve mentioned, I work in a call center.  You wouldn’t believe how many people either name their child something retarded or doom the kid to dyslexia with an insane spelling to a common name.  I’d love nothing more than to tell these people that they’re fucking idiots, but I can’t.  The people who know me personally know that I’m not the type to always hold my tongue, but I do for the people that call in.  It’s part because I want to keep my job, but my action in that situation is not indicative of my feelings.

So what if Casey remained calm and poised as much as possible during her trial simply because she didn’t want to look like a blubbering fool?  If she showed more emotion, would anyone have believed it anyway, or would most people still have asserted that she’s a sociopath faking emotion?  My guess is that no one would believe it anyway.

But we can’t know for sure.  Did she kill her child, or did she try to cover up a death that was likely due in part to negligence?  I honestly don’t fucking know because I wasn’t there.  Now, I can say that because of all the ridiculous lies that she shit out it’s very likely she did kill the kid and tried to cover it up.  I can conclude that the duct tape on Caylee strongly indicates that something nefarious happened.  But will any of those things grant me, or anyone, absolute certainty?

Unless I somehow become Superman Prime and gain the ability to travel in time to the moment that poor Caylee ceased to be, or unless I can read minds, I can never be certain as to whether she’s a crazy bitch or not, and neither can anyone else.

And that goes for just about anything.  We can never know the heart of another person, not even people we think that we know through-and-through.   Ultimately, what lies in the darkest corners of the human soul is a matter that is between the individual and whatever god he does or does not believe in. 

We can never know anyone’s true intentions unless they tell us and are not lying.


Karen Howes said...

Sorry, but based on the evidence, she is guilty as hell.

Damien said...

As you may be aware, I am what you call in America a lawyer, though in my country I am a barrister. I also spent many years as a prosecutor.

If I have any comments I must divide them into two categories, professional and personal.

Professionally I can say, and this message is also to Karen Howes above, that the decision was not based on the evidence but on the decision of the jury. I also would be hesitant to make a comment on the evidence unless you were present for the entire case.

Personally I put my Spanish hat on as I am both dual British-Spanish national and accredited to both legal systems. In this case I will say that I have less confidence in the Jury system and particularly in the American system. Why you should ask, then let me explain.

A Jury of one's peers basically means people from the street whom may or more than likely have little or no legal, forensic or pschological training. They will view people as the "average Joe" would and though that is understandable, would you want them to entrust your life with it? Though they are guided by the Judge through the process they are also targetted by prosecution and defence lawyers who are professional at their job and at persuasion.

In the US system in particular, defence and prosecution teams can chose what to show as evidence they wish to present and often avoid evidence that they considers not of value or may hinder the case.

In the British Jury system, anything that is connected to the case is given to the Sherrif Office of the court and must be presented to the court and if not used, presented to the Jury and explained by the Prosecution regardless.

Frankly speaking, I prefer the Tribunal system such as in Spain. Basically three judges are responsible, they are professionals with years of experience, they are not swayed by emotions or clever wording and will judge the case based on the law alone and only the history and qualities of the convicted, in sentancing.

Now, though we do not know all the evidence fully, we can wonder what a Tribunal may have decided on such a case as this one?????

Jack Camwell said...

Your perspective is very welcome. The Founding Fathers of America wanted to keep the jury system of law because they felt that the courts in Britain became merely arms of the king's will, rather than practitioners and arbiters of the law.

A tribunal of three judges would be far easier to buy off than a group of 12 people who have to unanimously agree on a verdict. True, a jury of one's peers won't have hardly any experience in law, and they might be more easily swayed by grandstanding, but should the law be so complicated that only experts can apply it?

I'm not sure about the evidence thing. Logically, does it really matter if one party wants to keep out a piece of evidence because it might hurt the case if the other party can simply call upon that same evidence thinking that it could help?

If a piece of evidence is not used in court because it is deemed useless to either case, then isn't it a waste of time to even bring it up and explain why it wasn't used to a jury?

By excluding the evidence, doesn't that mean the jury is not allowed to consider that evidence in the decision making process?