jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (8 posts)

Why should Casey Anthony be afforded a defense when it so obvious she is guilty?

  1. My Esoteric profile image90
    My Esotericposted 6 years ago

    Why should Casey Anthony be afforded a defense when it so obvious she is guilty?

    Isn't that a waste of taxpayer's money and doesn't that allow some shyster lawyer use the system against the people to find a technical way to get Casey off?

  2. Robephiles profile image88
    Robephilesposted 6 years ago

    Oh, I don't know...it might have something to do with our constitutional rights to due process.  I'm sure you think it would be a much better country if we just threw people in prison without trials or allowing them to have a defense but I sure wouldn't want to live in that country.

  3. James Agbogun profile image60
    James Agbogunposted 6 years ago

    She cannot be said to be guilty until she is declared guilty by the court of law. As such, she has the right to exhaust all means to prove her innocence.

  4. Writer David profile image78
    Writer Davidposted 6 years ago

    The 6th Amendment Right to Counsel Clause guarantees everyone that right, even those who appear blatantly guilty.

  5. sam3m profile image61
    sam3mposted 6 years ago

    obvious to whom?  also, and certainly more importantly, our system of law is based on innocent until proven guilty, not thought to be guilty.  everyone has the right to a defense.  the implications of denying that right are obvious.  granted, the system is often gamed, but it's still in place to protect us.
    For example, many people feel that the miranda warning gives criminals an unfair advantage.  it does not.  it gives people like you and i information we may need at a very critical time in our lives.  criminals don't need the warning.  they know it.  that's their business.  electricians know electrical codes, criminals know their miranda rights.

  6. nightwork4 profile image59
    nightwork4posted 6 years ago

    how is it obvious, because the media says so?or is it because the police say so? well , both of those groups have been know to lie and or make mistakes  so i'd rather see someone get a trial then be guilty without a trial.

  7. kwade tweeling profile image90
    kwade tweelingposted 6 years ago

    I almost didn't answer because there were some great responses right off the bat.

    We each have our right, granted via the constitution, to be considered "innocent until proven guilty" by our judicial system.

    We do NOT have a right, nor should we have the expectation at this point, for the media to give us a fair shake. They don't. The media makes money for reporting. They report what sells. Government conspiracy or not, the media does not tell us truth.

    Think back as well to a famous TV show/ movie. "I didn't kill my wife! It was the one armed man!"

    If you were framed, would you not want your due process?

  8. My Esoteric profile image90
    My Esotericposted 6 years ago

    Of course you are all correct.  I am surprised I didn't get one person agreeing with me because there are a lot of people out there that do, which is sad to the max.  There are many in my family who would agree with what I have said but I am happy to report that I am not one of them.

    For the record, I do believe beyond a reasonable doubt, at this point in time, that Casey is guilty.  But, having said that, I must hold off final judgement until the defense has rested. 

    The best testimony I have to those who argue with me face-to-face of the fallicy of their position is the few hundred people let off of death row so far because they were found to be actually innocent!  What I can't fight, however, because there is no way to overcome the illogic of it, are those who believe that it is OK to waste a few innocent lives in order to catch the many guilty.  That is a fundamental difference in mind-set, I believe between the Conservative philosophical view of justice and the Progressive view of justice.