|
Well, it certainly isn't surprising that so many people just blindly accuse her of having killed her child because they watched it on Fox News or whatever.
If a jury finds her innocent then that is what she is until the opposite is proven. How can anyone really argue differently?
The sad part about this is that her life is already destroyed since the act of going to court and becoming a part of the legal system is designed to degenerate our self-image as normal citizens and break us down only to cause a new identical realization that we are in fact scum or criminals.
The good part is that if she is actually guilty, this means her punishment has already been carried out. She will never have a normal life and will probably be persecuted and humiliated throughout the rest of her life.
|
On July 06 2011 07:53 Sideburn wrote:
The law has to err on the side of caution. It's always better to let a guilty man walk free than incarcerate an innocent man.
At least some people are mature enough to under stand that. The US justice system is more inclined to let the guilty go free then to convict the innocent.
|
She's guilty and everyone knows it. I can't believe she's going to walk away from this.
|
On July 06 2011 07:58 KangaRuthless wrote:
She's guilty and everyone knows it. I can't believe she's going to walk away from this.
Ok Nancy Grace.
|
On July 06 2011 07:58 GinDo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 07:53 Sideburn wrote:
The law has to err on the side of caution. It's always better to let a guilty man walk free than incarcerate an innocent man. At least some people are mature enough to under stand that. The US justice system is more inclined to let the guilty go free then to convict the innocent.
It's just seems logical. It's just type I and type II errors.
If you convict the innocent, you are also letting someone guilty go free. So it's unequivocally better to presume innocence.
|
On July 06 2011 08:00 GinDo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 07:58 KangaRuthless wrote:
She's guilty and everyone knows it. I can't believe she's going to walk away from this. Ok Nancy Grace.
Watching that cunt make me want to tears my hair out. Who let her out of the dog house? let alone on TV.
|
I love the way people snidely remark how this verdict is a joke and hold her to still be guilty. She was found not guilty for a reason.
|
On July 06 2011 07:14 MozzarellaL wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 06:58 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
No, I said he was stupid because he incorrectly used semantics. I think that I am correctly using them, because Black's Law dictionary defines Not guilty as "The form of the verdict in criminal cases where the jury acquit the prisoner." And acquit means "To release, absolve, or discharge one from an obligation or liability, or to legally certify the innocence of one charged with crime."
So, if Not Guilty = Acquitted, and Acquitted = Legally certified as innocent," how does not guilty != Innocent? Again, this is from Black's Law dictionary, which is one of the (maybe the) most widely used law dictionaries in the USA. By the definitions, I'm 100% correct, however, there is apparently some nuance in the language (undefined) that makes that not so. My point is that he's stupid because he's wrong, because (by definition) they mean the same thing. So far, no one has shown me that what I have said is false; they have, however, made unsubstantiated claims. I can't refute the claims very well, because he claims he's a lawyer (which could be true), and comes from a position of authority. Let me know if this venn diagram confuses you. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aBVT4.jpg)
You're speaking of a legal certificate, which is not the same thing as certification. A certificate is a document. That does not say "certificate" it says "to certify." While a certificate certifies, you can be certified without a certificate.
cer·ti·fy/ˈsərtəˌfī/Verb (Not defined by Black's Law)
1. Attest or confirm in a formal statement.
2. Officially recognize (someone or something) as possessing certain qualifications or meeting certain standards.
What you're speaking of would apply to a case like Alan Beaman:
http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/article_38954fa2-ded1-11de-ba1a-001cc4c002e0.html
Mr. Beaman's charges were dismissed, but he was not given an NG verdict. They dismissed the charges, and found neither in favor, nor against him (13 years into his sentence).
Dismiss:
To send away; to discharge; to cause to be removed. To dismiss an action or suit is to send it out of the court without any further consideration or hearing. Bosley v Bruner, 24 Miss. 462; Taft v Northern Tranap Co. 56N. H. 517; Goldsmith v Smith (C. C.) 21 Fed 614.
Dismissal:
The dismissal of an action, suit, motion, etc, is an order or judgement finally disposing of it by sending it out of court, though without trial of the issues involved.
(Both on pg 279)
You don't apply for a certificate of innocence when found not guilty. Take a look at what a petition for a certificate of innocence looks like here: http://forms.justia.com/illinois/local-county/cook/criminal/petition-for-certificate-of-innocence-46770.html
Notice the need of prior conviction to obtain this certificate. Now, I know you will point to #3, which says "I was acquitted." But acquitted is specifically defined as the following:
Acquitted: Release; absolved; purged of an accusation; judicially discharged from accusation; release from debt, etc. Includes both civil and criminal prosecutions.
So we see that "to acquit" is different than "being acquitted [by a judge]."
Acquittals in fact are those which take place when the jury, upon trial, finds a verdict of not guilty. (This would lead you back to the main definition of acquittal, or it should).
Acquittal: In Criminal practice: The legal and formal certification of the innocence of a person who has been charged with crime; a deliverence or setting free a person from a charge of guilt.
So, nice graph, but according to actual, verifiable sources (which I have listed, while you have failed to show a single source to prove me wrong (or even properly use mine against me), I'm failing to see how I am wrong. I guess "Acquittal in fact," and "Acquittal" were all I really needed. Looking at that graph again, you used the wrong word against me anyway. Legal dictionaries are very specific about the meanings of words. They intend to not leave room for debate.
If you still think I'm wrong, I'd like to be shown, in those definitions, how I am wrong, keeping this in mind "[w]hile a certificate certifies, you can be certified without a certificate."
|
United States42868 Posts
From what I've heard of the case she's guilty as sin but I guess the jury thought irrefutable proof wasn't there. You need to be certain with the death penalty.
|
On July 06 2011 08:05 KwarK wrote:
From what I've heard of the case she's guilty as sin but I guess the jury thought irrefutable proof wasn't there. You need to be certain with the death penalty.
That's part of the problem with this case, from day one the media portrayed her as guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, based on her behavior after the death, rather then on hard evidence. Literally no major media source that I saw in any way questioned the case made by the prosecution, they just painted her as guilty in a massive circus, and dismissed the claims made by the defense as nothing but dirty tricks.
|
The fault is with the prosecution I think. They went too far asking for death penalty, it's hard to convict someone to a death penalty, let alone one with full of reasonable doubt based on the evidences.
|
On July 06 2011 08:08 OooLong wrote:
The fault is with the prosecution I think. They went too far asking for death penalty, it's hard to convict someone to a death penalty, let alone one with full of reasonable doubt based on the evidences.
The punishment is charged later. They tried on like five different types of murder, which all have a range of penalties associated. She was found not guilty on all charges, except lying to a police officer (during an investigation. I assume that's part of the charge).
|
On July 06 2011 08:04 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:
You're speaking of a legal certificate, which is not the same thing as certification. A certificate is a document. That does not say "certificate" it says "to certify." While a certificate certifies, you can be certified without a certificate.
cer·ti·fy/ˈsərtəˌfī/Verb (Not defined by Black's Law)
1. Attest or confirm in a formal statement.
2. Officially recognize (someone or something) as possessing certain qualifications or meeting certain standards.
You're making distinctions I didn't care to make. To certify as innocent is a certification of innocence when the act is complete.
What you're speaking of would apply to a case like Alan Beaman: http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/article_38954fa2-ded1-11de-ba1a-001cc4c002e0.htmlMr. Beaman's charges were dismissed, but he was not given an NG verdict. They dismissed the charges, and found neither in favor, nor against him (13 years into his sentence). Dismiss: To send away; to discharge; to cause to be removed. To dismiss an action or suit is to send it out of the court without any further consideration or hearing. Bosley v Bruner, 24 Miss. 462; Taft v Northern Tranap Co. 56N. H. 517; Goldsmith v Smith (C. C.) 21 Fed 614. Dismissal: The dismissal of an action, suit, motion, etc, is an order or judgement finally disposing of it by sending it out of court, though without trial of the issues involved.
A dismissal is a dismissal. I'm not sure what bringing this up has to do with anything.
Please explain this to me, then:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/crime/la-me-accused-20110626,0,6630763,full.story
"Leiderman, one of his defense lawyers, thought it was not enough that the government dropped charges. He wanted the criminal justice system to recognize Gonzalez's innocence affirmatively.
There is such a thing as a declaration of factual innocence, he explained to Gonzalez. A judge can grant it. It is exceedingly rare — so rare that many cops and lawyers go a career without seeing one. It means not just that prosecutors couldn't make a case against you, but that you didn't do the crime....Gonzalez was soon holding a certified copy of the judge's order declaring him factually innocent."
Notice the need of prior conviction to obtain this certificate. Now, I know you will point to #3, which says "I was acquitted." But acquitted is specifically defined as the following:
Acquitted: Release; absolved; purged of an accusation; judicially discharged from accusation; release from debt, etc. Includes both civil and criminal prosecutions.
So we see that "to acquit" is different than "being acquitted [by a judge]."
I'm not following the point you are making. There are many different types of acquittal? Ok?
Acquittals in fact are those which take place when the jury, upon trial, finds a verdict of not guilty. (This would lead you back to the main definition of acquittal, or it should).
Acquittal: In Criminal practice: The legal and formal certification of the innocence of a person who has been charged with crime; a deliverence or setting free a person from a charge of guilt.
So, nice graph, but according to actual, verifiable sources (which I have listed, while you have failed to show a single source to prove me wrong (or even properly use mine against me), I'm failing to see how I am wrong. I guess "Acquittal in fact," and "Acquittal" were all I really needed. Looking at that graph again, you used the wrong word against me anyway.
No I didn't.
Legal dictionaries are very specific about the meanings of words. They intend to not leave room for debate.
Actually, you know, there are probably a total of 5 courts in this country that accept, without reservation, the definition in a legal dictionary on a point of law. Your point about the infallibility of legal dictionaries is not taken.
If you still think I'm wrong, I'd like to be shown, in those definitions, how I am wrong, keeping this in mind "[w]hile a certificate certifies, you can be certified without a certificate."
Black's Law dictionary (2009, 9th ed) defines 'not guilty' as "A jury verdict acquitting the defendant because the prosecution failed to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Notice how they don't use the word 'innocent' in this definition.
It defines 'innocent' as "Free from guilt; free from legal fault."
It defines "acquit" as "to clear a person of criminal charge."
I'm not sure where you're getting your information. I just looked it up on Westlaw.com with their Black's Law dictionary database. (I question as to how you 'looked up' terms in Black's Law dictionary for free online, as they most definitely do not offer such a service for free.)
Now, I am going to quote the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES to prove that you're wrong. Are you going to claim that your legal dictionary is more authoritative than the highest court in this country? That the Supreme Court is wrong on this point of law, that it is mistaken, and that the dictionary has it right? (even if so, the next day after the Supreme Court issues its new finding, the legal dictionary would be obligated to change its definition).
'We have explained that “acquittal on criminal charges does not prove that the defendant is innocent; it merely proves the existence of a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.”' United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354, 361 (1984). You are free to go to Google Scholar and read this court opinion if you so desire, simply put '465 US 354' into the search bar and select "Legal opinions". Enjoy.
Are you seriously going to continue arguing this point with me (and the other guy, who is a licensed attorney)? The Supreme Court is on our side, all you have is a erroneous interpretation of a legal dictionary's definition.
We also have a more recent Supreme Court decision, Kansas v. March, 548 U.S. 163, discussing an Illinois Court with approval, on page 194:
“While a not guilty finding is sometimes equated with a finding of innocence, that conclusion is erroneous.... A not guilty verdict expresses no view as to a defendant's innocence.” People v. Smith, 185 Ill.2d 532., at 545 (1999).
|
On July 06 2011 07:28 malady wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 06:32 staplestf2 wrote:
am i the only one that is glad this is over? now when i turn on the news i might be able to watch real news that might effect more then a handful of people. sorry if i sound bitter but when i turn on news i want to see what is happening in the world NOT some trial that has zero meaning to 99.99% of people. this crap was like the royal wedding 2.0. i'm in the states why should i care about the wedding of a symbolic prince that holds less power then richard branson. The best part is i know i will be hearing about casey anthony for the rest of the week. trust me everyone in orlando wants this over with already
Not true. I'm here, and I love it.
|
On July 06 2011 07:58 GinDo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 07:53 Sideburn wrote:
The law has to err on the side of caution. It's always better to let a guilty man walk free than incarcerate an innocent man. At least some people are mature enough to under stand that. The US justice system is more inclined to let the guilty go free then to convict the innocent.
the quote about "i'd rather let 100 criminals go free, than 1 innocent man be put in prison" (forgotten the direct quote) always strikes me as quite a win for the criminals.. statistically 
I agree with it being the lesser of 2 evils, but it sure does work in favor of some crappy people!
|
Having only read this for the first time today, as this story hasn't made news in the UK (or at least not to my knowledge), the evidence does seem to strongly indicate that this has been an incorrect decision. As people have pointed out, the justice system requires irrefutable evidence to prove somebody guilty, and although it seems there is extremely strong evidence against Casey Anthony, it seems not to have been enough. This story deeply saddened me, I feel so much for the little girl and what she must have gone through. Hopefully this decision was infact the correct one, despite the evidence that seems to point the other way. Either way, my thoughts are with Caylee tonight
|
On July 06 2011 07:28 Fraidnot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 07:16 StorkHwaiting wrote:On July 06 2011 07:09 manawah wrote:
This just shows that we still need a reliable method of detecting the truth. Truth is relative. thx philosophy 101 student for clearing everything up. Obviously since truth is relative you can't convict anyone of anything. She killed her baby, the jury should have seen the lies and known that she was hiding something.
What a freakout. Manawah was talking about a reliable method of detecting truth. I said truth is relative, therefore there is no such thing as a reliable method of detecting the truth. Material evidence is about as good as it gets. Nobody said anything about convictions, you nut.
|
On July 06 2011 08:37 Eleaven wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 07:58 GinDo wrote:On July 06 2011 07:53 Sideburn wrote:
The law has to err on the side of caution. It's always better to let a guilty man walk free than incarcerate an innocent man. At least some people are mature enough to under stand that. The US justice system is more inclined to let the guilty go free then to convict the innocent. the quote about "i'd rather let 100 criminals go free, than 1 innocent man be put in prison" (forgotten the direct quote) always strikes me as quite a win for the criminals.. statistically I agree with it being the lesser of 2 evils, but it sure does work in favor of some crappy people!
Believe that quote was originally attributed to Blackwell. Also, I believe it was "Better to let 10 guilty men go free than take away the liberties of one innocent man". Not completely posite on the quote but about 100% positive on the source.
|
WTF!? How can she get away with this? I she murdered her daughter, and she's getting away with everything except for being caught lying!
This just really irritates me...
|
On July 06 2011 07:56 TanX wrote:
Well, it certainly isn't surprising that so many people just blindly accuse her of having killed her child because they watched it on Fox News or whatever.
If a jury finds her innocent then that is what she is until the opposite is proven. How can anyone really argue differently?
The sad part about this is that her life is already destroyed since the act of going to court and becoming a part of the legal system is designed to degenerate our self-image as normal citizens and break us down only to cause a new identical realization that we are in fact scum or criminals.
The good part is that if she is actually guilty, this means her punishment has already been carried out. She will never have a normal life and will probably be persecuted and humiliated throughout the rest of her life.
A jury finding her innocent does not mean she did not do it - it just means the state couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she DID do it. If I'm a juror in that case, without any hard, physical evidence linking her to the murder(the forensic evidence was based on legally fishy science) and considering just how dysfunctional the Anthony family is (with the exception of Lee, who seems like the only sane one) it would be very hard for me to say that the state proved Casey killed her daughter. I personally think she had a major role in her daughter's death but my duty as a juror is to put those to the side.
The court of public opinion has lower standards though, and that's why it's important to differentiate between arguing whether or not she's actually guilty and arguing whether or not she should have been found guilty in a court of law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
