ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Casey Anthony: killer or victim?

Updated on July 6, 2011

Is Casey guilty of murder?

I for one am amazed at all the controversy regarding this trial and yet I can understand it. A young girl was killed and her body discarded. What I can not understand is all of the so called reporters of the news now reporting news but rather giving their opinion as to how wrong the verdict was. Many of these so called reporters saw only what other reporters chose to convey and I suspect made up their mind before the trial ever began. It reminds me of when a Cleveland, Ohio newspaper published headlines Why is a killer allowed to walk free regarding the trial of Samuel Sheppard some years ago, Time eventually showed that the doctor was innocent and was released from prison.

Casey it appears was not the best mother for all the reasons we have heard about her conduct but that does not necessarily mean that she is a killer. She made some bad choices but we can point our fingers at many others who make bad choices as well, from Linsey Lohan and the necklace to those arrested for drug use at one time of another. We depend upon our courts to find the truth though. This case has been compared to the O,J, case but the difference is that the jury in the O.J. case was not objective and the trial itself was permeated with racism. The jury in this case was objective without prejudice. They were only concerned with where the truth could be found. Their decision was that Casey had not killed her child and that the evidence showed that. We may disagree but it is our one opinion as opposed the the 12 opinions of the jurists. We could change the law and say that there is no such thing as double jeapardy and keep trying someone until we get the verdict we want but if the person is truly innocent, who becomes the victim? We established out system of courts and laws to provide a fair and reasonable method of determining the guilt or innocence of an accused but to simpy claim someone is guilty because that is the way we feel is to toss aside a system which has worked well for many years. We may not like Casey and we may think her a horrible person and a horrible mother but if we condemn her for those reasons, who next? Do we condemn the husband who stops for a beer after work instead of going home to his wife and children? Do we condemn the mechanic who makes a mistake when fixing out car perhaps the weatherman for failing to warn us about the rain about to fall on our parade?

WE established the system of courts and juries to try to find the truth and we need to accept the findings of that jury, whether we agree or not, or we might as well simply annoint a king to make those decisions for us. The jury in this case did not believe that Casey killed her daughter and we have to respect the decision that they made and not let our personal feelings cloud our own judgement just as they did not allow theirs to affect the decision they arrived at.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Al Bacon profile image

      Al Bacon 6 years ago from Fraser, Michigan

      As I write this, I am struck by the fact that the sentencing of Casey Anthony is on tv now which raises the question of how much coverage we should have of ongoing criminal cases simply because this can be so selective. We hear the case of Casey and her daughter but last night a man was arrested for the murder of his teen age girl friend who had just graduated from high school and ready to go to college. There is no question but that he did murder her based upon all the evidence obtained, but are we going to see all the news coverage in that case? Have we gotten to the point where we watch actual court cases on tv rather than fiction and if so, how are we going to decide which cases would make good television? Here we would have the choice of the murder of a child or the murder of a young girl with her entire life ahead of her. Perhaps we could televise trials in the manner of "American Idol" or " dancing with the stars" and have thousands of jurists rather than simply 12. On the other hand, we could select a jury of 12 unbiased jurists and let them decide guilt or innocence. I think we gain more by setting aside our own emotions and rely on the present system and let a jury tell us what they have condsidered and what decision they made in a case and ignore those who appear in public to tell us what they believe in an attempt to sway us to their opinion. The jury spoke in this case and none of us should have the audacity to think our own opinion has more merit than the opinion of those who heard all of the evidence in the case.

    • profile image

      Justsilvie 6 years ago

      Excellent Hub, excellent points!

      The jury did their job. They must have had reasonable doubt. And in all honesty I would rather see a killer go free than an innocent person be persecuted. Is that not what our justice system is supposed to prevent?

    • kd4rvb profile image

      kd4rvb 6 years ago from Titusville, FL

      "Their decision was that Casey had not killed her child and that the evidence showed that." This may be correct though I believe they did not convict her more because the evidence did not prove she killed her than it showed she didn't. It is a very difficult case and while I feel she at least had something to do with it I believe the jury came to the only conclusion thy could based upon the evidence. You raise some great points.