DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Casey Anthony
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 119, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 07/05/2011 07:56:48 PM · #51
Originally posted by scarbrd:

I do think they try end runs around it at time. The OJ case is a perfect example. He was acquitted in criminal court, but convicted of the same crime in civil court. I'm no OJ apologist, but if that's not double-jeopardy, I don't know what is.


OJ was found guilty of wrongful death in a civil suit, he never did any time in jail for that.
 07/05/2011 07:57:19 PM · #52
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I tend to agree with you Bear & Scalvert. Just throwing the idea out for discussion. I guess a hung jury is the equivalent of my option: "not found to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", leaving the defendant open to future prosecution if NEW, COMPELLING EVIDENCE surfaces. So I'm good with that.

I still think she's guilty as hell, but at least we can look forward to another 10 years or so of Casey Anthony being followed around by the media until she does something else.


I think that in Scotland they have an option to return a 'Not Proven' verdict.
 07/05/2011 08:03:40 PM · #53
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by scarbrd:

I do think they try end runs around it at time. The OJ case is a perfect example. He was acquitted in criminal court, but convicted of the same crime in civil court. I'm no OJ apologist, but if that's not double-jeopardy, I don't know what is.


OJ was found guilty of wrongful death in a civil suit, he never did any time in jail for that.


True but he's in jail now. How is he suppose to find the killers behind bars???!!!
 07/05/2011 08:21:36 PM · #54
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by scarbrd:

I do think they try end runs around it at time. The OJ case is a perfect example. He was acquitted in criminal court, but convicted of the same crime in civil court. I'm no OJ apologist, but if that's not double-jeopardy, I don't know what is.


OJ was found guilty of wrongful death in a civil suit, he never did any time in jail for that.


I get that, but still, once someone is acquitted of a crime in any court (in this case a superior court), it should preclude prosecution for ostensibly the same crime in any other court, IMO.

Otherwise, it opens the door for prosecution of lesser versions of the same crime in various courts. Can't convict on 1st degree murder, then let's got for manslaughter this time. Not guilty in criminal court? Get the family to prosecute in civil court. Can't find for the plaintiff there? Let's take him city court for that world's slowest car chase through LA.

That is exactly what double jeopardy protection is supposed to prevent.
 07/05/2011 08:28:16 PM · #55
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by scarbrd:

I do think they try end runs around it at time. The OJ case is a perfect example. He was acquitted in criminal court, but convicted of the same crime in civil court. I'm no OJ apologist, but if that's not double-jeopardy, I don't know what is.


OJ was found guilty of wrongful death in a civil suit, he never did any time in jail for that.


True but he's in jail now. How is he suppose to find the killers behind bars???!!!


well he had no luck on the golf course.
 07/05/2011 08:40:51 PM · #56
Originally posted by scarbrd:


Otherwise, it opens the door for prosecution of lesser versions of the same crime in various courts. Can't convict on 1st degree murder, then let's got for manslaughter this time. Not guilty in criminal court? Get the family to prosecute in civil court. Can't find for the plaintiff there? Let's take him city court for that world's slowest car chase through LA.



Double Jeopardy is intended to limit abuse by the government in repeated prosecution for the same offense as a means of harassment or oppression.

if person wan to pursue a lengthy revenge suit, there isn't anything to stop them and that's their right, but i don't think they can keep going after the individual, at least it would prove expensive.

besides what you are suggesting happens in the reverse all the time, people and companies take cases to higher and higher courts to try and get the desired outcome.
 07/05/2011 09:51:21 PM · #57
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by scarbrd:


Otherwise, it opens the door for prosecution of lesser versions of the same crime in various courts. Can't convict on 1st degree murder, then let's got for manslaughter this time. Not guilty in criminal court? Get the family to prosecute in civil court. Can't find for the plaintiff there? Let's take him city court for that world's slowest car chase through LA.



Double Jeopardy is intended to limit abuse by the government in repeated prosecution for the same offense as a means of harassment or oppression.

if person wan to pursue a lengthy revenge suit, there isn't anything to stop them and that's their right, but i don't think they can keep going after the individual, at least it would prove expensive.

besides what you are suggesting happens in the reverse all the time, people and companies take cases to higher and higher courts to try and get the desired outcome.


That's the appeal process and it is a remedy not available to the state. You can't appeal a Not Guilty verdict.

With the OJ example, when he was acquitted in the criminal murder, that should have prevented anyone in civil court to sue him on the assumption that he is guilty. By legal definition, he was found innocent (not guilty), so how could he be convicted in civil court for something he legally didn't do? Because the burden of proof is lower in civil court? That is the essence of the harassment and oppression you speak of. Whether it's the government or a private citizen doing the oppression and harassment really shouldn't matter. Not guilty is not guilty.

07/05/2011 09:57:29 PM · #58
In this case, not all things wrong will be made right, and I wonder how else Casey Anthony will surface in the future. I question how we as a society can help this very disturbed family or are they even worth that consideration? Are we connected to this family and what happened to Caylee Anthony beyond the judgmental role of the courtroom drama?

Clearly, trouble isn't likely to leave Casey Anthony any time soon.
 07/05/2011 10:03:30 PM · #59
Originally posted by hihosilver:
In this case, not all things wrong will be made right, and I wonder how else Casey Anthony will surface in the future.


She'll be on "Pole Dancing with the Stars"
 07/05/2011 10:11:08 PM · #60
I was not at all surprised by the verdict. Had I been on the jury I would have had a hard time finding her guilty as there was no real proof. Gut feelings, or what 'we think' happened can not be used to convict. The burden of proof lay upon the prosecutors, and they failed to provide the proof. My personal feeling is that Caylee's life was taken accidentally by her mother...but alas, that is a gut feeling with no proof to substantiate it.
 07/05/2011 10:19:30 PM · #61


actually the jury did NOT hear everything we did.. some things the judge would not allow... here are my thoughts.. NO mother would wait 30 some odd days to report a child missing!!! I personally believe she did it... maybe by accident ... but IMO she was responsible for that little girls death!!! I think its DISGUSTING how her defense lawyer after the verdict at the press confrence said " I hope all of you learned your lesson assuming the jury would come back guilty" realllyyy???? thats what your so smug about??? this little girl is dead ... no one pays for it.. that woman cried more over her not guilty verdict then she did during the trial when talking about her little girl!!! I hope the rest of her life is a fricken nightmare!!!! she could be out partying as soon as thursday!!!! BLAH!!!! another OJ case...
 07/05/2011 10:20:42 PM · #62
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by hihosilver:
In this case, not all things wrong will be made right, and I wonder how else Casey Anthony will surface in the future.


She'll be on "Pole Dancing with the Stars"


Thank you for that point. And, doesn't that type of shameless voyeurism contribute to painful situations like this one rather than help prevent them?



Message edited by author 2011-07-05 23:06:15.
 07/05/2011 11:07:54 PM · #63
Originally posted by Eagle40Fox2:
Not Guilty of Murder, Child Abuse, or Manslaughter.

Thoughts?


Beyond a reasonable doubt. The state didn't prove it's case enough to clear any doubts about the murder.
 07/05/2011 11:09:56 PM · #64
No riots?
 07/05/2011 11:11:03 PM · #65
Humanity does odd things. Has odd ideas. Casts right and wrong. Judges legal and illegal. Seems to be a strugle we are all part of. Sooner or later we all fail. Real question: who is there to help you up and who is there to stomp you down.
 07/05/2011 11:11:39 PM · #66
Originally posted by faidoi:
No riots?


Sorry, only in Vancouver I here.
 07/05/2011 11:29:49 PM · #67
Personally I think she was guilty, BUT the Prosecution were Idiots! First to charge only with 1st degree murder, Then to go to trial with out cause of death? I wonder if she was charged with a lower degree of murder if the jurors wouldn't have returned a gulity verdict. Knowing that a death sentence could accompany your verdict would certainly make me er on the side of caution! Not to mention the Defense team reminded me of Billy the lawyer in the movie/play Chicago, Razzel Dazzel them confuse and confound...
 07/05/2011 11:30:43 PM · #68
It's a sad thing all the way around. A child dies, a family is torn apart. Not one of them is likely to have a normal life. They will forever be one of them. Regardless of my personal opions, which are likely biased by the news, the jury did vote unanimously to acquit. Doesn't mean she didn't do it, it just means that the state did not even convince one juror that she did. If she didn't do it, she is still going to live a life where most will say she did. She may get a short bit of fame, and a few bucks, and then drop off the radar like the rest.

In the meantime, about the rest of the Caylee's? Do we continue to igore how some parents abuse their children? When do we speak up, and speak out? When do we ensure safe homes, sufficient food, and adequate medical care for all our children?

When something goes horribly wrong, we all murmur and make clucking noises about the gravity of the situation. When, do we finally decide to do something about the problem. To become involved, become our brother's keeper.
 07/06/2011 05:21:48 AM · #69
Originally posted by scarbrd:
...The double-jeopardy protection is a basic foundation of the US judicial system.

I do think they try end runs around it at time. The OJ case is a perfect example. He was acquitted in criminal court, but convicted of the same crime in civil court. I'm no OJ apologist, but if that's not double-jeopardy, I don't know what is.


...Actually NO.

Double jeopardy would have meant being tried for the same crime in the same court. As you so aptly mentioned, one process was criminal and the other civil, and these are two separate and distinct processes.

Ray
 07/06/2011 07:27:50 AM · #70
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by hihosilver:
In this case, not all things wrong will be made right, and I wonder how else Casey Anthony will surface in the future.


She'll be on "Pole Dancing with the Stars"


Thank you for that point. And, doesn't that type of shameless voyeurism contribute to painful situations like this one rather than help prevent them?


I dunno 'bout that, but it'll get her out of the house, away from the kids...you know, everyone needs a little "me" time.
 07/06/2011 07:57:21 AM · #71
I think she probably killed her little girl. Since "Almost Certainly Guilty" wasn't an option for the jury, I think they gave the proper verdict, and I will add that I believe that's as it should be. Such a sad case.
 07/06/2011 08:57:58 AM · #72
I still lived in Orlando when this "reality show" had its debut. She was found guilty by the media on day one. Way before CNN noticed her.
They did start to push this story like mad right away, and I guess they succeeded in selling many millions in advertising for all the
news outlets that force fed this "show" for the last many years. Its a very sad story, and a bad reflection on a decaying culture.
 07/06/2011 09:09:07 AM · #73
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I tend to agree with you Bear & Scalvert. Just throwing the idea out for discussion. I guess a hung jury is the equivalent of my option: "not found to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", leaving the defendant open to future prosecution if NEW, COMPELLING EVIDENCE surfaces. So I'm good with that.

I still think she's guilty as hell, but at least we can look forward to another 10 years or so of Casey Anthony being followed around by the media until she does something else.


One way the Law has gotten around such cherished Constitutional Double Jeopardy protections is implicate some federal crime, with use of a cell phone, internet, etc.

Scalvert- you forgot DSK, we convicted him the first Day.

Two concerns come to mind, if, by the slight chance she didn't do it- what better way to spend 3 years of your life being prosecuted for the death of your child?

Secondly, in America, we face awful economic prospects, 2 1/2 expensive wars- outrageously bad weather patterns(due to climate change) oil spills, and healthcare we can't afford(yet we ridicule those who try to fix it?) and yet we spend all our time worrying about an insignificant Florida prosecution? or the Petit case?
 07/06/2011 09:17:40 AM · #74
Originally posted by littlemav:
Personally I think she was guilty, BUT the Prosecution were Idiots! First to charge only with 1st degree murder, Then to go to trial with out cause of death? I wonder if she was charged with a lower degree of murder if the jurors wouldn't have returned a gulity verdict. Knowing that a death sentence could accompany your verdict would certainly make me er on the side of caution! Not to mention the Defense team reminded me of Billy the lawyer in the movie/play Chicago, Razzel Dazzel them confuse and confound...


They didn't seem to having any trouble convicting this guy due to lack of evidence/unknown cause of death. He was pretty much convicted on his behavior after the fact. Is it just easier to convict a man? Or is it just maybe that people have such a hard time believing a mother would kill her own child?
 07/06/2011 09:56:15 AM · #75
*

Message edited by author 2011-07-06 11:16:03.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/23/2025 02:41:05 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/23/2025 02:41:05 PM EDT.