Unless you live under a cave somewhere (and if that was the case, you wouldn't be reading this either), you had to have been at least aware of Casey Anthony and the case against her. If you read and watch the news (multiple times) daily like me, then you know a tad bit more.
A combination of two factors, in my opinion, of how a case works in our system played a huge role in the verdict:
- The burden of proof lies on the prosecution side; the defendant is innocent until they are proven guilty.
- A twelve-member jury of our peers holds the fate of the defendant.
In another article, the same juror is quoted as saying:
"The prosecution had to prove it. Why is it my fault if they didn't prove their case? If you give me the evidence, I'm happy to return a verdict accordingly."Ford said the fact that Anthony could have faced the death penalty was a consideration."If they want to charge and they want me to take someone's life, they have to prove it. They have to prove it, or else I'm a murderer too."But at the same time, I don't think the jurors should be considering the punishment part of the deliberation at this point because at this phase they should only be considering whether they think the defendant is guilty or innocent.
I'm against the death penalty as well, but to acquit someone because of that is unfair and UNJUST. These jurors realized that the alternate could have been life in prison, right? That's one of the drawbacks of a jury of peers -- you don't know if they know how it all works.
I sometimes wonder what it would be like if it was reversed; if the defense had to prove their innocence!
The aspect that did it for me was the fact that if she was innocent, why would she not report her daughter missing for 31 days? Who does that?
What do you think of the verdict? Do you think she's innocent? Do you think it was an accident gone awry? Or do you think Casey Anthony just got away with murder?
P.S. Don't forget to leave me a comment below on your thoughts! As always, I'd love to hear from you.