Casey Anthony's Obvious Murder is Even More Obvious Now

[Pickle Juice]

As a juror, I would need really strong evidence to convict someone in a case where the death penalty was on the table. So I both think that there is a good chance Casey Anthony is guilty and that the jury made the right call. I do think this piece of evidence may have made a difference, though, because it seems a lot stronger than the chloroform search.

Well just tell the court the bolded part if you ever find yourself reporting for jury duty, and hopefully you will be dismissed.

It is actually the duty of every juror to consider the evidence, and only the evidence, in any trial. The potential for the death penalty to be decided upon is not evidence. Nor is the rationality of the defendant as perceived by you, what you would do in their place, what a rational person, as perceived by you, would have done or should be expected to do, etc., etc.

If there was anyone on that jury who was convinced of Anthony's guilt but refused to find her guilty because they were worried about the death penalty they had a duty to say so, so a mistrial could have been declared and justice served in a new trial.

 

[shyvas]

Jeff Ashton's interview just after the verdict :

 

[cornsail]

It is actually the duty of every juror to consider the evidence, and only the evidence, in any trial. The potential for the death penalty to be decided upon is not evidence.

I don't care, I'm still going to take the possibility of falsely sentencing someone to death very seriously. I believe the death penalty should require a higher standard of evidence regardless of what the courts say is my duty. And I don't think most jurors can simply remove the consequences of their decisions from their minds. At least I would hope not.

Nor is the rationality of the defendant as perceived by you, what you would do in their place, what a rational person, as perceived by you, would have done or should be expected to do, etc., etc.

I disagree. However, I wasn't the one who brought it up. I was responding to AspireToExpire.

If there was anyone on that jury who was convinced of Anthony's guilt but refused to find her guilty because they were worried about the death penalty they had a duty to say so, so a mistrial could have been declared and justice served in a new trial.

I don't see what this has to do with my post. I said I would require strong evidence, not that I would vote not guilty even if convinced.

 

[mlp]

I don't care, I'm still going to take the possibility of falsely sentencing someone to death very seriously. I believe the death penalty should require a higher standard of evidence regardless of what the courts say is my duty. And I don't think most jurors can simply remove the consequences of their decisions from their minds. At least I would hope not.

I'm against the death penalty, for a number of reasons. That being said, it makes no sense to require a higher standard of proof for death penalty cases than for non-death penalty cases. For one, sentencing someone to life in prison is no less harsh a penalty than sentencing someone to death, and in many cases is worse. For another, there's not really much/any room on the spectrum between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "beyond any doubt whatsoever", and "beyond any doubt whatsoever" is pretty much unattainable.

 

[Pickle Juice]

I don't care...

Which is why I would hope you and people like you, who seem to think serving jury duty is your opportunity to jump on your personal moral soapbox and ignore what is actually required of a juror, will do everything you can to avoid ever serving.

 

[ledboots]

If I were chosen for jury duty in a capital case, I would tell them the truth--that I wouldn't vote anyone to their death. Because there is no way of "no doubt at all" .

 

[das_nut]

I'm against the death penalty, for a number of reasons. That being said, it makes no sense to require a higher standard of proof for death penalty cases than for non-death penalty cases. For one, sentencing someone to life in prison is no less harsh a penalty than sentencing someone to death, and in many cases is worse.

Unless we've managed to raise people from the dead, the death penalty does have a flaw that mistakes can never be rectified.

In addition, once someone is executed, the strongest advocate for their innocent (themselves) is gone, and it's unlikely that others will take the time to prove their innocence.

We have executed innocent people before. We've literally released over a 100 people from death row since the death penalty has been reinstated. We've also executed people and found strong indications that they were innocent only after they were dead.

 

[AspireToExpire]

The real person Caylee was stuck with during those days:

Duct tape, having died/been disposed of in a shirt the grandmother had testified to never have seen but there was evidence the little girl had only been photographed outside the home at sleepovers with Casey's boyfriends that she'd also lied about that read; "big trouble comes in small packages" and in shorts that were too small for the toddler... then being put into 2 garbage bags and placed in the woods- says a lot about the thought process of the last person with a live/deceased Caylee.

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[cornsail]

I'm against the death penalty, for a number of reasons. That being said, it makes no sense to require a higher standard of proof for death penalty cases than for non-death penalty cases. For one, sentencing someone to life in prison is no less harsh a penalty than sentencing someone to death, and in many cases is worse.

I disagree. Also, someone sentenced to life at least has their remaining natural lifespan to fight their case. Damien Echols, to give a famous example, had to fight his conviction while he was scheduled to be executed. Can I ask why you are against the death penalty if you believe a life sentence is an equally harsh punishment?

For another, there's not really much/any room on the spectrum between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "beyond any doubt whatsoever", and "beyond any doubt whatsoever" is pretty much unattainable.

I think there is plenty of wiggle room in the interpretation of how much doubt is "reasonable doubt". From my experiences observing and discussing various cases, I have the impression that my standards for "reasonable doubt" are more conservative (i.e. I'm less likely to consider "beyond a reasonable doubt" to have been met) than many other peoples', death penalty case or not.

Which is why I would hope you and people like you, who seem to think serving jury duty is your opportunity to jump on your personal moral soapbox and ignore what is actually required of a juror, will do everything you can to avoid ever serving.

Snipping my post to remove the context from "I don't care" and using words like "soapbox" makes it come off like you are trying to score zingers against a post which annoyed or offended you. People seemed to like it, so you can consider me successfully zinged. And yes, I understand that you hope I will avoid serving on juries.

 

[Pickle Juice]

If I were chosen for jury duty in a capital case, I would tell them the truth--that I wouldn't vote anyone to their death. Because there is no way of "no doubt at all" .

I think that would be the best thing to do in your circumstances.


What people seem to forget - and this isn't directed at you, ledboots, anymore than most of the post I made in which I quoted Cornsail was directed at him - is that the judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys might be just as loathe to try death penalty cases as you are to serve as a juror on them. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of people working in that segment of the legal profession involved in criminal acts are against the death penalty. That's only a guess. But my point is that in spite of how they probably feel, they do their jobs and follow the laws of their states.

In case anyone wants to come along and say they choose those jobs, so it's not the same, it is. Anyone who enjoys the rights and privileges of living in the US has a duty, if and when they are called, to serve on a jury. That's one of the inescapable obligations of being a US citizen, so yes, it is your job, if you get picked, death penalty notwithstanding.

And if anyone thinks that by avoiding serving on murder cases, they can keep a clean conscience, no, that's not how it works.

Maybe I'm being a bit stuffy about this, but trial by a jury of your peers is simply the best system any society is ever going to be able to attain. When I think of the days not all that long ago when all you had to do to be hanged was be black, or a poor person accused of pickpocketing, or a woman accused of witchcraft, I actually do feel good about being able to serve on a jury, and I do take the duties expected of a juror seriously, because leaving my personal beliefs and opinions out of the process of arriving at a decision based only on the evidence presented is the only way to provide a fair and unbiased decision.

 

[Pickle Juice]

Snipping my post ...

That's not why I snip. It's good forum etiquette to snip, because it saves bandwidth. Everything else you have said just indicates you are reading emotion and motivation into my writing, that isn't there. I'm not here to zing anyone. I do, however, feel very strongly about people serving on juries who are not there to do what is required of them.

 

[AspireToExpire]

People seemed to like it, so you can consider me successfully zinged.

In my defense, I like a lot.

 

[das_nut]

Anyone who enjoys the rights and privileges of living in the US has a duty, if and when they are called, to serve on a jury. That's one of the inescapable obligations of being a US citizen, so yes, it is your job, if you get picked, death penalty notwithstanding.

Luckily, in my state, death penalty is not an option. So the issue is moot.

I would also argue that as a citizen on a jury, the law itself is also on trial. If juries regularly want to uphold death penalty cases to a higher standard of proof, I don't see a problem with that, despite what the law actually says.

 

[mlp]

Unless we've managed to raise people from the dead, the death penalty does have a flaw that mistakes can never be rectified.

Spending a substantial amount of time in prison for a crime you didn't commit is also a mistake that can never be rectified. I guess you're one of those people who think that if enough money is given to the wrongfully imprisoned, the mistake is rectified? I would hazard a guess that you'd have a hard time finding someone who would feel that losing a substantial portion of one's life is rectified by money (not even considering what life in prison is actually like).

In addition, once someone is executed, the strongest advocate for their innocent (themselves) is gone, and it's unlikely that others will take the time to prove their innocence.

Who in prison has ever proved themselves innocent?

We have executed innocent people before. We've literally released over a 100 people from death row since the death penalty has been reinstated. We've also executed people and found strong indications that they were innocent only after they were dead.

Sure. And sadly, that kind of effort is almost always put forth only in death penalty cases. Because apparently some people think only people faced with the death penalty deserve that kind of *special* consideration. That's one of the things that I find really troubling about your and Cornsail's position in this discussion.

Can I ask why you are against the death penalty if you believe a life sentence is an equally harsh punishment?

1. Because death penalty cases eat up resources, financial and otherwise, at an astonishing rate.
2. Because to kill someone in cold blood as punishment for killing someone doesn't make any logical sense.
3. Because for a society to take a life in cold blood without any need to is detrimental to that society and the individuals which make up that society.
4. Because carrying out an execution is detrimental to the individuals doing it, and if it doesn't have a negative effect on them, then they are not the kinds of individuals that should be chosen to represent the society.
5. Because I know that I could not carry out an execution in cold blood without that act having a significantly negative effect on who and what I would be from that point forward, and having someone else carry out the execution on my behalf does not lift the responsibility for the act from me (see item #3 above).

I think there is plenty of wiggle room in the interpretation of how much doubt is "reasonable doubt". From my experiences observing and discussing various cases, I have the impression that my standards for "reasonable doubt" are more conservative (i.e. I'm less likely to consider "beyond a reasonable doubt" to have been met) than many other peoples', death penalty case or not.

So what would be achieved by adding a different standard of proof in death penalty cases? (Other than to say, "Hey, if you're just potentially sending someone to prison, for life or for a lesser sentence, it's really not something that you need to take all that seriously.") And what would your standard of proof be?

 

[mlp]

I would also argue that as a citizen on a jury, the law itself is also on trial. If juries regularly want to uphold death penalty cases to a higher standard of proof, I don't see a problem with that, despite what the law actually says.

Woah. That's the kind of thinking that has led to crimes against minorities being treated more leniently or excused altogether, to name just one glaring problem with this kind of mindset. Not to mention it requires a pretty immense ego.

 

[Pickle Juice]

I would also argue that as a citizen on a jury, the law itself is also on trial.

Absolutely not.

It is really very simple. Let's say an armed intruder has invaded your home and you have witnessed him killing your spouse before you were able to subdue him. When he goes on trial, do you want a bunch of jurors with moral and political agendas of their own, who think this is their big chance to stand up for what they believe, or do you want a bunch of jurors actually paying attention to the evidence of the case and forming a decision based on impartial consideration of that evidence? I'm not asking you if you would want vengeance, I'm asking you what sort of person you would want to see on that jury.

 

[das_nut]

Spending a substantial amount of time in prison for a crime you didn't commit is also a mistake that can never be rectified.

No, it can never be rectified. But the person who is released has the rest of their life left. The person who is executed does not.

Obviously, unless you consider kidnapping to be equal to murder, involuntary commitment is not the same as death.

Who in prison has ever proved themselves innocent?

There's the case of the West Memphis 3, who admittedly took an Alfred plea, but were very successful at raising publicity for their cause. Many innocent people who were later released worked very hard to publicize their innocence.

That's one of the things that I find really troubling about your and Cornsail's position in this discussion.

What's wrong with saying that the harsher the punishment, the greater the burden of proof society should have? Do you honestly think that every speeding ticket should be treated the same as every capital murder case? Should every speeder have trials that stretches to weeks or months? Seems like a good way to have a disfunctional court system.

So what would be achieved by adding a different standard of proof in death penalty cases? (Other than to say, "Hey, if you're just potentially sending someone to prison, for life or for a lesser sentence, it's really not something that you need to take all that seriously.") And what would your standard of proof be?

One change I'd make would be to require more than circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony. Both of which seem to be culpable for a high degree of wrongful death penalty convictions.

 

[das_nut]

Woah. That's the kind of thinking that has led to crimes against minorities being treated more leniently or excused altogether, to name just one glaring problem with this kind of mindset.

Of course, the same has been used to protect minorities - for example, juries refusing to convict people in violation of the fugitive slave act in northern states before the Civil War.

It would also be amiss to blame jury nullification for all white juries dismissing crimes against minority victims, when a large part of that problem probably exists with the all-white jury.

 

[mlp]

No, it can never be rectified. But the person who is released has the rest of their life left. The person who is executed does not.

Obviously, unless you consider kidnapping to be equal to murder, involuntary commitment is not the same as death.

Well, if you're saying that the kidnapping lasts years, decades, the rest of the kidnapped person's life, with rape, beatings, etc., being part of the package, I know which one I would choose, between the kidnapping and death.

Of course, I think there are worse things than death, and you apparently don't.

There's the case of the West Memphis 3, who admittedly took an Alfred plea, but were very successful at raising publicity for their cause. Many innocent people who were later released worked very hard to publicize their innocence.

And that's my point - it takes the people on the outside who are necessary to overturn a sentence.

What's wrong with saying that the harsher the punishment, the greater the burden of proof society should have? Do you honestly think that every speeding ticket should be treated the same as every capital murder case? Should every speeder have trials that stretches to weeks or months? Seems like a good way to have a disfunctional court system.

The burden of proof is the same with respect to a speeding ticket as it is with respect to a homicide; the former is just easier to prove and so doesn't take the same amount of time. According to you, with your sliding scale idea, I guess the burden of proof with respect to a speeding ticket should be "maybe or maybe not." And I guess the burden of proof with respect to a robbery should be "more likely than not he may have been the perpetrator." It'll be a windfall for the for profit prison system.

One change I'd make would be to require more than circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony. Both of which seem to be culpable for a high degree of wrongful death penalty convictions.

So, let's say that an employee comes into his office, breaks the neck of a co-worker within sight of ten other co-workers, carry the corpse out with him and dumps it where it's never found. He's free and clear as far as you're concerned.

Congratulations! You're a genius at this legal stuff.

 

[das_nut]

Well, if you're saying that the kidnapping lasts years, decades, the rest of the kidnapped person's life, with rape, beatings, etc., being part of the package, I know which one I would choose, between the kidnapping and death.

Of course, I think there are worse things than death, and you apparently don't.

Logically then, the human thing to do is to execute everyone who is going to prison.

And that's my point - it takes the people on the outside who are necessary to overturn a sentence.

People on the outside, and on the inside. While there is very strong evidence that some people we've executed are not guilty, none of the post-death-penalty-ban convictions have been overturned.

The burden of proof is the same with respect to a speeding ticket as it is with respect to a homicide; the former is just easier to prove and so doesn't take the same amount of time. According to you, with your sliding scale idea, I guess the burden of proof with respect to a speeding ticket should be "maybe or maybe not." And I guess the burden of proof with respect to a robbery should be "more likely than not he may have been the perpetrator." It'll be a windfall for the for profit prison system.

Really? So if a traffic camera takes a picture of a license plate belonging to a vehicle I own speeding, that's enough evidence to give me a speeding ticket. Presumably, according to you, that's enough evidence to charge someone with murder.

So, let's say that an employee comes into his office, breaks the neck of a co-worker within sight of ten other co-workers, carry the corpse out with him and dumps it where it's never found. He's free and clear as far as you're concerned.

Well, if our legal system had only "capital punishment" and "let people free", that would be the case.

Maybe we should come up with a legal system that would have varying degrees of punishment. It seems more flexible to me.