Casey Anthony Crap
Senator McConnell says that because of the trial, terrorists could win. Because juries are so stupid. Or something.
Caylee’s law is a bad idea. I’ll go a step further and say it’s irretrievably stupid. So, of course, Tennessee Democrats are looking to pass one in our state. And it will probably pass. And it’s stupid.
The prosecution did not prove a cause of death.
The prosecution therefore did not prove that the death was caused by another person, because they don’t know the cause of death.
Do I think she did it? Yup. But the prosecution sucked and we don’t go executing people because some guy on the internet thinks you did something.
July 12th, 2011 at 10:19 am
As pointed out on The Agitator, Caylee’s law would also be unconstitutional. Since reporting that a child is missing is providing evidence of a crime, the fifth ammendment would cover anyone refusing to do so.
July 12th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
There was a woman on the news last night (I don’t remember her name) who was saying that this case proves that we as a nation need professional, full time, paid, juries who are specially trained to hear cases.
This hysteria is really starting to tick me off.
July 12th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Oh dear God the last thing we need is government employees deciding guilt or innocence.
July 12th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
So, we want a three judge panel to decide facts and law as is done in Germany today (and over the last 150 years, too, btw)? I recall a law review article that showed how that one difference made it easier for Nazi philosophy to poison the legal system, resulting in the sort of social “Justice” Nazi Germany was famous for.
Besides, I always thought it was an unwritten policy that it was better in America to let 100 guilty go free than to convict one innocent person.
July 12th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
Stormy Dragon has it. If you actually did kill your kid, you couldn’t be prosecuted for failing to report because it would be a Fifth Amendment violation, just like a prohibited person can’t be required to register a firearm. The only people this law would snag are the innocent.
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
July 12th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
100% agree. I’ll add, the 12 on the jury were actually there, seeing and hearing all. We spectators only imagine that we knew what was going on at the trial but we just saw the news.
There is no need to criminalize more behavior because of one trial, even if it was over the murder of a precious little girl.
July 12th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
It never should have gone to trial. They didn’t have a case.
July 12th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
It wouldn’t even get the innocent, Diomed. Per Ohio v. Reiner, you can still claim the fifth even if you’re not suspected of the specific crime you’re being questioned about because the testimony could be used against you in a future prosecution of some sort.
July 12th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
As an example, suppose I’m driving down the street and I see the bank across the way getting robbed. If I call the police and report it, they would be able to testify that I was at a particular location at a particular time. Since I’m unable to forsee all possible futures in which that fact might become incriminating (suppose 30 minutes later someone is rundown a few blocks away by a hit and run driver in a similar car? Maybe my wife accuses me of having an affair with a lady living near that bank?), I cannot be required to call and report the robbery to the police.