The Not Happy Thread

I just sent something off for a deadline tomorrow....then randomly remembered I have another one...its 3 a.m. *types with reckless abandon*

 

That's okay then, the best work is done fuelled by that kind of adrenalin rush. Hope you finished it.

 

I did. Thanks.

 

I have to make an A in Organic Chem II this semester or I lose roughly $6000 in scholarships. I calculated what I'll end up with based on my currents grades, assuming I get a 100% on every assignment from here on out, and I can only get an 88%.

/rage

 

I'm so ready for my WSI class to be over...but I still have another week.

i can make it to friday. I can make it to friday. I can make it to friday.

 

CASEY ANTHONY NOT GUILTY? That makes me very unhappy. I can understand not having enough evidence to convict on the first degree murder charge, but there was clearly, at minimum, neglect/manslaughter involved. Chloroform, duct tape, waiting a whole month to report a child missing while she went out partying, lying about anything and everything. She was ONLY found guilty on charges of lying to law enforcement - a mere slap on the wrist, considering she'll probably walk VERY soon based on time served.

What the heeelllllllllll

 

Sorry, double post

 

I know. This is absurd. I feel sick. My mom just sent me a WTF text. We're all horrified

 

This if from reading the news report. Now I'm not accustomed to the case, but this is what i gather-

The jury believed the defence: that the young girl drowned in a swimming pool? Which was then covered up by her panicking Grandfather?

The evidence was highly circumstantial: No witnesses, no solid traces of chloroform or decomposition in the back of her car, "where prosecutors said Ms. Anthony stashed Caylee before disposing of her body."

it seems there was enough doubt that a murder conviction, a murder conviction (Which needs to show a clear, formed intention to kill) would be unsafe in the circumstances.

Maybe negligence that she died? But I'm honestly not really that familiar with the case...if she just basically threw all this lies to the jury to infuse doubt in their minds, and she is indeed, guilty, then it's disgraceful that she's gotten away with it.

 

Just her behavior alone, she doesn't even miss that baby, says volumes. Just... volumes. It makes me ill.

 

I think the problem may be that the prosecution dropped the ball, but there is not a doubt in my mind that she's guilty. Even IF Caley HAD drowned in a pool, why would Casey wait a whole month to report the incident, and how in the world could she go out partying right after her daughter died? Why would she lie and say a fictional nanny took her? Why would Caley's body be found in a swamp with duct tape on the skull? Furthermore, why would Casey have "how to make chloroform" as a search in her computer? Why would her car have smelled like human decomposition (the smell of garbage and decaying flesh are two very different smells). She's a cold, manipulative, pathological lying sociopath. But again, prosecution dropped the ball, so now the sociopath will likely be back out on the streets in a few weeks.

 

What about a retrial then? Surely she can't just be let to walk away?

 

Double jeopardy. I don't know the US legal system(s) terribly well, but I'd imagine jeopardy had attached, and she couldn't be retried for the same thing.

 

Nope

 

Yea i've heard of double jeopardy, but if they can find any anomalies in the procedures used the trial, or an error on the part of the judge for example in issuing advice to the jury, it may be possible to appeal and get the appeal judge to order a retrial? I might be wrong though.

 

Unless she bribed the judge or something.. I don't think it's happening.

 

The US takes double jeopardy rules very seriously. In the UK there are exceptions (quite strict exceptions, one of the superior courts has to hear arguments as to why and give the CPS permission to retry the offence), but as far as I'm aware such exceptions don't exist in the US.

 

You can't really combine neglect/manslaughter that way. Manslaughter still requires proof that the defendant killed the victim. Beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution didn't present that great of a case, from what I saw of the trial. Circumstantial evidence can add up, but if that's all you have at the end of the day, it is pretty easy for the jury to find that the case hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Yeah, she can't be re-tried for these crimes. It used to be, when the U.S. was founded, that governments would sometimes just try people over and over until they finally got a conviction. It could be used for political purposes as much as anything. So the rule here is that once you've been acquitted you cannot be tried for the same crime again.

 

I don't understand the outcry of her not being convicted. Give me ten guilty men walking free over one innocent man being imprisoned for something they didn't do. And standards of proof exist for a reason. Hard as it is to accept it in certain cases, the defendant deserves the benefit of the doubt in each and every case. They shouldn't face the consequences unless a jury is satisfied so they are sure of their guilt. It's not for the defence to prove it, it's for the prosecution. If they have a feeling, or think the defendant's guilty, that's not good enough to secure a conviction. That's a justice system. That's how it should work.

 

I totally agree with this

 

Exactly so.

 

Agreed. I had a similar argument on the internet a while back, on the blog of an MP. You can't just try people on public opinion. The process was worked through to the end. She was found not guilty. That's the end of the matter, really.

And Dante is absolutely right. Blackstone's mantrim (Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer) is the foundation of the justice system in both the UK and the US for a reason.

 

And even with that, you still get the odd (Very rare) miscarriage of justice.

The Guildford Four spring to mind

 

Having buffoons like Nancy Grace trying the cases in the media doesn't help either. It is no wonder Courts in whose jurisdiction she was a prosecutor have found that she didn't live up to her ethical obligations. You have to wonder who her audience is...