Ever since Casey Anthony was found not guilty of killing her two year old daughter Caylee, there has been an outpouring of anger, frustration and outrage at the verdict. And like any other instance of emotional events, this has caused no shortage of people willing to give their two cents about what this says about our country, and what should be done.
There are those who want the jury investigated. There are those who want Casey to somehow be retried and convicted, and of course there are those hoping that Casey is murdered. Now I don't know whether or not she is guilty or not. I think that most rational and reasonable people would look at the things we have heard and would probably think that she at least has more to do with this than she perhaps let on.
However, I think that in this situation, while it may not be a popular notion, the justice system worked the way it was supposed to. A jury of Anthony's peers were summoned, they listened to the evidence brought forth by the prosecution, listened to the defense, and decided whether or not they feel that the evidence was there that Anthony killed her daughter. And they felt that the evidence was not there.
*MORE AFTER THE BREAK*
Now while I did not follow the trial as much as some others did, from what I understand, there was never a cause of death given for little Caylee. There was never a situation where it was unequivocably stated that her death was caused by her mother's intentional actions or neglect. And so they found her not guilty, due to the their feelings that the Prosecution did not make their case.
I think that in this case, that's what they were asked to do: To weigh the Prosecution's case and to see if there was evidence that she did it or reasonable doubt. Just because the end result was not what many people would like, does not make their decision any more or less appropriate.
I think it's easy to give an opinion on whether or not you think someone is guilty. However if there is no evidence, if there is no cause of death, how can you say without a shadow of a doubt, that she was killed by her mother? I don't see how you can do that. If they had said to hell with the facts or lack thereof, and voted to convict her on their opinion that she had done it because of news coverage or what they had read or heard prior to the case, that would have been a travesty and a mockery of the Justice system.
Not that the justice system is perfect by any means. There's way too many wrongful convictions and potentially wrongful executions going on to say that. However, in this case, I think the system worked. A jury of her peers felt the prosecution did not make their case.
In this situation, if you want to blame someone, then blame the Prosecuter for not making their case. The Jury did their job. The defense did their job. It was the state that failed to do their job.
Finally, I'll end this with a video from The David Pakman show in which they discuss the Casey Anthony verdict and I think eloquently express the points that I've tried to make in this piece, only they do it better, I think.