When a jury or a Judge returns a guilty verdict this verdict may be overturned in appeal by a higher court. In fact, the appeal process is a standard next step when a guilty verdict is reached in a trial. This means that, in a guilty verdict, a jury is found to have made the wrong decision about a guilty verdict. If a jury’s guilty verdict may be wrong we have to also believe that a jury may be wrong when reaching a non-guilty verdict.
According to ABC News “Casey Anthony juror Jennifer Ford said that she and the other jurors cried and were "sick to our stomachs" after voting to acquit Casey Anthony of charges that she killed her 2-year-old daughter Caylee.”. Ford went on to say “ ‘I did not say she was innocent,"..."I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be.’ " This “not-guilty” term makes no sense; either you did it or you did not do it. When this juror say that she did not say Casey was innocent then... what does not being innocent makes Casey? Guilty.
The following points mean that there is something wrong with this verdict:
1) If this jury was sick to their stomachs and crying when voting to acquit Casey Anthony is because they believe that she is in fact guilty; otherwise these sentiments would have been absent.
2) If they believe Casey Anthony was guilty and “were sick” to their stomachs for reaching a not-guilty verdict, how can they say that “there was not enough evidence”? Furthermore, this declaration by Ford strengthens these points: "It doesn't feel good. It was a horrible decision to have to make."
3) According to this: “Ford said that she couldn't make out "logically" the prosecution's argument because there were too many unanswered questions about how Caylee died, including how Casey Anthony would have used chloroform to smother her 2-year-old daughter, then put her in the trunk of her car without anyone seeing her.”..."If there was a dead child in that trunk, does that prove how she died? No idea, still no idea." Ford told Moran. "If you're going to charge someone with murder, don't you have to know how they killed someone or why they might have killed someone, or have something where, when, why, how? Those are important questions. They were not answered." Any criminal that commits the crime alone (which most do) will walk free. Even though the burden of proof is in the Prosecution, it was obvious to this jury that Casey Anthony was guilty. They really needed an exact answer to all the details?
4) Reasonable doubt is clearly what this jury had. Doubts that are reasonable... They did not understand the concept of “BEYOND”. The jury believed Casey Anthony was guilty but wanted answers to every detail of Caylee’s death, which is impossible unless a crime is completely recorded. Ford states that Caylee’s body being in the trunk of Casey Anthony’s car does not prove HOW she died. Does the jury need to know exactly how Caylee died even though they believe that her body was in Casey Anthony’s car? Does the fact that they don’t know exactly how Caylee died takes away the fact that she was dead? This does not make ANY sense. This means that Casey Anthony will walk free because she “entertained” investigators while the body of her daughter decomposed to the point where a manner of death could not be determined. Again, this gives a great idea to criminals: Distract police long enough for the body of your victim to decompose and you will walk free.
To further support my point, according to an alternate juror, Russell Huekler, he would have reached the same non-guilty verdict because “"...they [prosecutors] didn't show us how Caylee died. They didn't show us a motive.” (Burke, Hopper, Francis & Effron, 2011). Therefore, if there is no motive and exact cause of death it means the crime did not happen? In addition, even if the prosecution shows that (a) the victim is dead and, (b) the defendant committed the crime, the prosecution HAS to prove why and how otherwise the defendant will not be punished?
We, as a society, have to stand up and prevent Casey Anthony from getting away with such a crime. This not-guilty verdict is setting a precedent for other trials in which the prosecution must prove HOW a person died and show MOTIVE for the crime.
Caylee Marie Anthony has been victimized twice and will not be able to grow and have her own family while her killer will be enjoying life and freedom because, according to Ford, “...there were too many unanswered questions about how Caylee died, including how Casey Anthony would have used chloroform to smother her 2-year-old daughter, then put her in the trunk of her car without anyone seeing her.”..."If there was a dead child in that trunk, does that prove how she died? No idea, still no idea." (Burke et. al, 2011) Too many unanswered questions? I, as well as almost the entire world watched every minute of this trial and have not agreed with this jury. Personally believe that this jury saw a lucrative opportunity by making this verdict a shocking one.
If we allow Casey Anthony to go free and this verdict to stand, we won’t have a place to live soon. Law-abiding individuals will need to move away and make space for the criminals that willbe set free under these new standards of justice.
This verdict sets a dangerous precedent for future criminal trials.
Burke, M.K., Hopper, J., Francis, E., & Effron, L. (2011, July 6). Casey Anthony Juror: 'Sick to Our Stomachs' Over Not Guilty Verdict. Retrieved from the ABC News Internet Ventures Web page: http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anthony_trial/casey-anthony-juror-sick-stomach-guilty-verdict/story?id=14005609#top