Let me get this straight. Under your definition of guilty until proven innocent, I'm a police officer. I decide I don't like you, so I arrest and charge you with whatever criminal offense I want to. The state has no obligation to prove you did it. You have to prove you didn't do it.

 

Sorry, I don't want to live in that country.

 

No, not quite like that. The state would have to state the facts, provide evidence. If there is absolutely nothing to show guilt, you couldn't go to jail. I'm talking more about this kind of case when all the evidence was right there, I would have loved to have heard Anthony had to explain why none of it proved her guilty. Rather than have the state prove that Anthony not reporting her child missing for 31 days made her guilty, I would rather have had Anthony provide reasons for how it did not.

 

I hate the idea that the evidence was so overwhelming in this case and yet it did not prove it in a court of law. As for an officer making up a case on someone, how are they going to prove anything unless they completely frame someone in which case the defendent is probably screwed in either system.

CatsCatsCats, I think if you are going to say that more guilty people have gone free than innocent people have been wrongfully convicted you need to prove it. Here's a list of over 200 people who have been exonerated of rape or murder convictions since the early 90s. In almost all of those cases there was evidence that far exceeded what was presented at the Anthony trial - eyewitness testimonies, forensic scientists, and even confessions - in other words, cases you would consider a slam dunk. And you would have been dead wrong.

I agree OR. I can't believe they would let so much of this stuff get on the news. I do think that plays a huge part in this kind of trial :thumb:.

 

 

 

Alot more guilty people walking free than innocent people sitting in jail though. Alot more. There is no one in the world who could honestly think she didn't do it. There is never such thing as being "100% certain" about someone's guilt, like you have to to vote guilty in the first place. The justice system has become a sham if someone like Casey Anthony can murder her child and get away with it, and people think that is the right verdict. I'm of the opinion that you should be guilty until proven innocent in criminal cases. Why should the state have to prove Anthony did it? How did this case provide justice, a guilty woman who commited the worst crime in the world is walking free. Wouldn't it make more sense for her to have to explain why even though every piece of evidence points back to her that she didn't do it. She did it, you know it & I know it, case closed send her to the electric chair and fry her up good.

Holy hell. I have been a member of this site for 10 years and that is easily the most preposterous thing I have ever seen posted. Innocent until proven guilty is probably one of the three best things in this country. Never would I dream of having that taken away.

Still not quite sure what qualifies this as national news ...

 

Court TV and HLN.

 

Yeah, that's not working for me.

 

spindoc stated my case pretty well in a P&R thread, when he said, "Media portrayal of issues today has major influence over how we feel socially." I think that particularly applies here.

CatsCatsCats, I think if you are going to say that more guilty people have gone free than innocent people have been wrongfully convicted you need to prove it. Here's a list of over 200 people who have been exonerated of rape or murder convictions since the early 90s. In almost all of those cases there was evidence that far exceeded what was presented at the Anthony trial - eyewitness testimonies, forensic scientists, and even confessions - in other words, cases you would consider a slam dunk. And you would have been dead wrong.

 

There is no way you can have evidence to prove something like that. How many unsolved murders are there every year because there is not enough evidence to make a case against someone?

 

Holy hell. I have been a member of this site for 10 years and that is easily the most preposterous thing I have ever seen posted. Innocent until proven guilty is probably one of the three best things in this country. Never would I dream of having that taken away.

 

No argument from me there. I just hate that Anthony won this case. I probably wouldn't feel like that at any other time :thumb:.

There is no way you can have evidence to prove something like that. How many unsolved murders are there every year because there is not enough evidence to make a case against someone?

 

What you've described shouldn't be terribly difficult to look up. What I gather you are saying is that you believe so many murderers and rapists go free in this country the system of "innocent until proven guilty" should be replaced with a despotic "guilty until proven innocent" system, despite having no evidence whatsoever to support your belief and against the evidence presented that hundreds off innocent people have been sent to prison and death row despite having "fair" trials and evidence against them beyond a "reasonable doubt." And that's just since 1992. I'm sorry, but I can't take that seriously.

What you've described shouldn't be terribly difficult to look up. What I gather you are saying is that you believe so many murderers and rapists go free in this country the system of "innocent until proven guilty" should be replaced with a despotic "guilty until proven innocent" system, despite having no evidence whatsoever to support your belief and against the evidence presented that hundreds off innocent people have been sent to prison and death row despite having "fair" trials and evidence against them beyond a "reasonable doubt." And that's just since 1992. I'm sorry, but I can't take that seriously.

 

You said 200 people have been freed since 1990 (was it?). You don't think that many guilty people are walking free now? I can't take your claim seriously if you think that the justice system puts more people behind bars that are innocent than lets guitly people walk free.

Also Habib when you find the database of people who looked guilty but were not put behind bars let me know. I don't know how that would exist. Much easier to collect data on people that have been released from prison. Shouldn't be that hard to find? Are you serious? Where would you even begin to look for that?

You said 200 people have been freed since 1990 (was it?). You don't think that many guilty people are walking free now? I can't take your claim seriously if you think that the justice system puts more people behind bars that are innocent than lets guitly people walk free.

 

Also Habib when you find the database of people who looked guilty but were not put behind bars let me know. I don't know how that would exist. Much easier to collect data on people that have been released from prison. Shouldn't be that hard to find? Are you serious? Where would you even begin to look for that?

 

So, again, you're willing to believe something with absolutely no evidence to support it just because you think it's true? And despite being presented with evidence of the inverse - a long, and by no means complete list of innocent people sent to death row or life sentences - you still believe that "innocent until proven guilty" is too weak of a threshold? You want to make it easier to send innocent people to the killing line on a hunch? You believe the justice system would work better as long as someone is punished for a crime, just as long as there is some evidence that they did it, even if it couldn't be proven? You literally stand for everything I stand against when it comes to our justice system.

 

And yes there are national aggregators of unsolved murder cases, including the FBI. Fortunately, "people who looked guilty" isn't a category in any data set. I imagine most unsolved murders are cases where there is scant evidence available beyond speculation or no leads whatsoever. If there was a lead suspect they were probably drug to trial. Regardless, if it happens so often you should at least be able to find a couple of cases where a murderer was able to beat their rap because "reasonable doubt" was too burdensome of a threshold.

So, again, you're willing to believe something with absolutely no evidence to support it just because you think it's true? And despite being presented with evidence of the inverse - a long, and by no means complete list of innocent people sent to death row or life sentences - you still believe that "innocent until proven guilty" is too weak of a threshold? You want to make it easier to send innocent people to the killing line on a hunch? You believe the justice system would work better as long as someone is punished for a crime, just as long as there is some evidence that they did it, even if it couldn't be proven? You literally stand for everything I stand against when it comes to our justice system.

 

And yes there are national aggregators of unsolved murder cases, including the FBI. Fortunately, "people who looked guilty" isn't a category in any data set. I imagine most unsolved murders are cases where there is scant evidence available beyond speculation or no leads whatsoever. If there was a lead suspect they were probably drug to trial. Regardless, if it happens so often you should at least be able to find a couple of cases where a murderer was able to beat their rap because "reasonable doubt" was too burdensome of a threshold.

:thumb: :thumb:

 

I wholeheartedly agree.

No argument from me there. I just hate that Anthony won this case. I probably wouldn't feel like that at any other time :thumb:.

You'll have to help me understand. You just said that "I'm of the opinion that you should be guilty until proven innocent in criminal cases." and now you are saying the total opposite....

So, again, you're willing to believe something with absolutely no evidence to support it just because you think it's true? And despite being presented with evidence of the inverse - a long, and by no means complete list of innocent people sent to death row or life sentences - you still believe that "innocent until proven guilty" is too weak of a threshold? You want to make it easier to send innocent people to the killing line on a hunch? You believe the justice system would work better as long as someone is punished for a crime, just as long as there is some evidence that they did it, even if it couldn't be proven? You literally stand for everything I stand against when it comes to our justice system.

 

And yes there are national aggregators of unsolved murder cases, including the FBI. Fortunately, "people who looked guilty" isn't a category in any data set. I imagine most unsolved murders are cases where there is scant evidence available beyond speculation or no leads whatsoever. If there was a lead suspect they were probably drug to trial. Regardless, if it happens so often you should at least be able to find a couple of cases where a murderer was able to beat their rap because "reasonable doubt" was too burdensome of a threshold.

 

I can only speak from experience and from what I've seen. In my life I've seen way more people get away with criminal actions because of our weak justice system than I have wrongfully imprisoned. Now before the 90s I think you would have a case for your argument becasue we did not have all of the technology that we have today. Sendng the wrong person to prison should happen less and less as a result of pharensics, should it not?

 

I do not think that someone should go to jail no matter if they did it or not. That is just stupid, and no reasonable person would expect that or even suggest it. But, I do think that it is becoming harder and harder to convict criminals. It is way too easy to poke holes in a case or to create doubt even with the science we have today. The only thing I'm for in the justice system is for the criminals to go to jail. I don't care how it happens. To me punishing the right person is justice, whether or not it goes by traditional standards of the justice system. I think that everyone is entitled to a fair trial, but I think that we have taken it too far in making it too easy to get away with murder. Only an idiot would get caught and go to jail for murder today. Everything other than eye-witness accounts is circumstantial now IMO. We have an on-going case in my hometown that should be a slamdunk conviction (motive, body on property, threating texts and internet messages, bragging about it on facebook, eye-witness accounts) but I bet nothing happens.

You'll have to help me understand. You just said that "I'm of the opinion that you should be guilty until proven innocent in criminal cases." and now you are saying the total opposite....

 

Hello, my response to you was saying that I probably wouldn't mean that at any other times. With this case, and murder cases in my area of the country, I cannot think about it unbiasedly right now. Better?

I stand by the statement. It's may only be a few in this particular instance but it's most every day. On here, facebook, at church, you name it. Talking specifically about this case, does it really matter what the jury decided? If you are a christian and believe what the bible says then the only judgement that matters is between Casey and god. And if she accepts Jesus Christ into her heart, confesses your sins and truly repents then she will not be burning for all eternity like most want to think.

I agree with the last part of your post...and I hope that happens.

spindoc stated my case pretty well in a P&R thread, when he said, "Media portrayal of issues today has major influence over how we feel socially." I think that particularly applies here.

 

Thank ya.

 

Frankly, I find it a joke that this has become some national issue. People who are getting all worked up over this should be paying more attention to what happens in their own neighborhood. This is an issue only where it happened, not a national issue. For some reason, if they're white and pretty, the national news -- I'm looking at you, Nancy Grace -- gets up in a tizzy over stuff that happens everywhere, all across the nation to people not fortunate enough to be born white and pretty.

 

I would call to task everyone who is outraged over this incident to expend similar energy working on issues closer to home. Or, just be balanced about your national outrage. Say, for example, when a black girl goes missing.