An Uninformed Opinion

It seems like the Casey Anthony case swept the nation by storm, culminating in yesterday's "not guilty" verdict. I take no interest in law or legal proceedings nor did I follow this case closely (or at all), but there was a pretty massive barrage of expressions of shock yesterday across social media platforms.

It seemed like everyone had an opinion about the case, mostly how appalled and outraged they were that a cold-blooded murderer of a little girl would walk freely and how justice was not served.

I thought it was pretty crazy how extreme and violent these reactions were. Promises of vigilante justice were made (but hopefully not followed up on) as were comparisons to the infamous OJ Simpson case.

It's funny how quick our seemingly non-judgmental society is to denounce a 25 year old single mother who lost her daughter based on the opinions of talking heads, blogs, and circumstantial evidence.

I'm not saying she did or didn't do it. Like I said, I haven't followed the case much at all, but from what I've read, the case against her was built almost completely on circumstantial and anecdotal evidence and experimental forensic research. By all accounts, she was probably a pretty terrible mother and involved in her daughter's death in some fashion.

But "probably" is not the same as "beyond reasonable doubt" and being a crappy mother is not the same as murder.

It bothers me how easily the general public turned on Casey Anthony using a criteria that certainly none of us would like used against us.

Today it seemed there was no shortage of people wondering who was to blame for what happened. Was the defense just an all-star cast? Did the prosecution fail? Was the jury incompetant?

Those are valid and likely probabilities, sure. But did it occur to anyone else that maybe, just maybe, the judicial system worked exactly how it should? That Casey Anthony was not guilty and the court system saved her from ramifications of crimes she didn't commit? I think this didn't cross the mind of a lot of people, and in that case, I'd ask them why a full trial was even necessary? If "probably" should be enough to put her away, what's the use of judges and attorneys anyway? After all, EVERYONE knows that she did it. Right?

I was listening to the radio on the way home from work today. One caller said that she thought the jury messed up because they came to a verdict so quickly. According to this woman, there's no way the jury spent enough time going over the facts and details of the case.

First of all, no, that's not what a quick verdict means. Second, I thought it was hilarious that this woman would have the gall to say something like that. I highly, highly doubt that she spent more than 1 hour of her life reading or watching anything about this case. And she's doubting the jury, who sat through every minute of the trial and were necessarily consumed by it? That's ridiculous.

Again, I don't want to come off sounding like I think Casey Anthony is some wonderful, innocent human being. But someone can be not guilty without being innocent. I wish that this case had spawned more intelligent discussion, not emotionally charged rants about lawyers drinking champagne or tweets of shock from the daughter of the man who helped OJ Simpson walk free.

Whatever the case may be, it's a sobering reminder that true, real justice is never served on earth. But when it is, it will be swift and unmistakable.