A partial remedy to the Casey Anthony trial?

[RashanGary]

I got to thinking. . . There was no way to prove 1st degree murder. There was no way to prove aggravated child abuse. She could have chloroformed her to knock her out and killed her accidentally (ruling out murder 1). Someone else could have killed her (ruling out either.) She could have killed her (ruling out aggravated abuse as she cannot be charged for the same crime twice.) We do know one of several things happened. We do know Casey had a large amount of responsibility either in the act or in the cover up. We can't prove which one.


BUT. . . . . I believe in cases where a person withholds information and/or lies about information regarding a rape, death, missing child or other form of extreme violent crime, a new charge should be applied, a more serious charge than the ones she was found guilty on.It should be something like 2-10 years for withholding info in an extreme felony.

In this case, had that charge been possible, Casey could be in prison for 10 years. Hell, make it a 2-15 year possible penalty. It's not a complete remedy. Whatever happened, it was absolutely awful on her part because if it weren't she would have covered it. If it were only a few year charge, she would have come forward. So it's not perfect, but it does give the ability to throw murders, rapists and pedofiles in prison for longer in cases where it's obvious something horrible happened, but exactly which of the possible scenarios happened is impossible to prove.

[RashanGary]

This law works because if a best friend hears his best friend say he had sex with a girl the night before, he was so drunk, he though maybe she said, "no." Then a week later, it's shown on the news that a girl was raped and information shows he knew what happened and did not contact authorities.

In a case like this, while the crime done is extreme, there is that glimmer of possiblity that this guy didn't want to believe his friend did it and did not bring the evidence forward for that reason. While it is an awful thing to do, especially in hindsight as things played out, it's not nearly as heinous as blantantly watchign his friend do it and then not telling. There is a shred of possibility that he didn't have horrible intent but knew damn well he should have come forward.

In that case, maybe something like 2 years would suit. In Casey Anthony's case, the full 15 would make much more sense.

It gives more strength to the prosecutors to punish crimes that cannot be proven under a specific law, but there is proof that some crime and/or coverup occured.

[mraynrand]

So long as she has Hugo Chavez as her lawyer, you'll never get a conviction....

[Freak Out]

I don't follow shit like that.....but when I saw the verdict and a brief description of the events that led up to it I just had to shake my head......wtf over?

[RashanGary]

You could feel the power that guy felt after he won that case. He had to do his job. There wasn't proof of what happened exactly. He shouldn't be a defense attorney if he purposely lead the case in a way to show she was guilty when it couldn't be proven.

That said, he seemed to enjoy it way too much. She's guilty of something and that guys thirst for power and victory overrides his conscious, knowing a person who committed some form of awful crime just got off the hook because exactly which form couldn't be proven.

It's a hole in the legal system. It was upheld correctly as I understand it, but I'm a rule maker, not a rule breaker or follower. Staying true to my rule maker tendency, I simply write a new, just, law to prosecute in a way that the punishment fits the crime (or one of the possible scenarios of which no other situation would apply beyond a reasonable doubt.)

When you have to prove, "this exact thing happened beyond a reasonable doubt" it becomes very hard for the prosecution. If they could just prove, "one of these things happened beyond a reasonable doubt." then justice can much more easily be served. Now, if it's possible, beyond a reasonable doubt that maybe none of these things happened", sure, the person should be let off, but if that were the case here, I think she'd be in prison a lot longer. It is one of a few possibilities, beyond a reasonable doubt as I see it. Even the least offensive of the possibilities is worthy of 15 years.

She got off not because the law wasn't upheld in the trial (by definition, there is no way for that to happen because the jury is has complete power here and whatever they decided is right by definition.) But even in a less broad sense, even in the sense that, "was there enough proof to even a person moderately aware of law?" No, I don't think there was enough evidence for either of the two alone. She got off not because the law was not ruled properly as it stands today. They did their job (the lawyer and the jury). She got off because the way the law is ruled on sucks.

[mraynrand]

Is there a problem here?

[Little Whiskey]

you just need to becareful of adding rules so that the gov't can find you guilty of somthing and throw your ass in jail. That is why the founding fathers setup "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt". but then again, they throw the constitution out the window on other things....why not this too. my opinion has nothing to do with this case. i didn't follow it at all.

[Iron Mike]

She already has a job offer:

http://www.examiner.com/pop-culture-in-hartford/casey-anthony-porn-movie-offer-already-from-vivid-entertainment

[RashanGary]

I'm not saying don't prove guilt. I'm saying show all possible scenarios that could happen within reasonable doubt. Punish her to the least of the reasonable crimes, rather than having to prove it's one or the other.

Also, I think the punishment for withholding information in extreme crimes (kidnapping, killing, rape) is way to light. Are you kidding, 1 year? There should be a new law, where if it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a person withheld information in these extreme situations, they should be prosecuted according to the severity of the cover up, not some blanket 1 year max bullshit. 1 year for getting in the way of justice of rape, killing and kidnapping just seems way too light.

[MJZiggy]

I'm not saying don't prove guilt. I'm saying show all possible scenarios that could happen within reasonable doubt. Punish her to the least of the reasonable crimes, rather than having to prove it's one or the other.

Also, I think the punishment for withholding information in extreme crimes (kidnapping, killing, rape) is way to light. Are you kidding, 1 year? There should be a new law, where if it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a person withheld information in these extreme situations, they should be prosecuted according to the severity of the cover up, not some blanket 1 year max bullshit. 1 year for getting in the way of justice of rape, killing and kidnapping just seems way too light.

That would be assuming she's guilty. Of what, you don't know, but you're going to throw her ass in jail because you know she did SOMETHING. Problem is that according to the law, you have to prove not only that she did something, but what she did. Otherwise the sheriff could show up at your door and say "dammit, Justin, I know you did something!" I can't prove it so I'm just going to throw you in jail for the least thing I think sounds reasonable. You're still breaking the innocent until proven guilty maxim.

[GrnBay007]

Just really a sad, sad deal. The media made this case pop and society is outraged. Unfortunately far, far too often children suffer violence at the hands of those they love and trust to keep them safe. We have a case where I live coming to trial soon (granted a change of venue because the poor woman could not receive a fair trial here) of a woman who beat her 3 yr. old to death and then burned her remains in a firepit in her back yard. When I read all the reports I felt physically sick.

I just try to keep in mind.........

"Justice isn't always served here on Earth or by man's hands"

[wootah]

A couple of months ago we had a trial (Parachute Murder) that was similar in the way that there was no 'real' evidence to convict the suspect. However she also lied several times to the police, showed questionable behaviour in & out of the courtroom and had a gigantic motive.

The jury decided she was guilty, which led to a lot of controversy about the use of non-professional juries in such cases.

[RashanGary]

I think she tried to chloroform her to knock her out so she could party, but accidentally killed her. That's just my guess. If I was given free reign as judge, juror and executioner . . . I'd throw her behind bars for 15 years, whether exactly what happened was proved or not.

I understand the spirit of the law, and I guess I'm OK with what happened, but this is an example of how easy it is to evade the justice system. I wanted brainstorm an idea or two to make people like Casey pay a steeper price.

[mraynrand]

[mraynrand]