The rule of law? Well, with the invasion of Iraq, those being held without trial in Cuba and Afghanistan, the extrajudicial killings commited daily by the US government, that train left the station a long time ago.
No, the problem I have with the jury is that they misapplied the law. No reasonable doubts doesn't mean the absence of any doubts at all. However, she indirectly admitted being present when the child died. her actions over the subsequent month indicated both a lack of guilt and an attempt at a coverup. Plus, how is dumping your kid's body in a swamp any less nuttier than killing him?
Sure, DNA evidence would have been nice. But a mountain of circumstantial evidence was there.
The proverbial train left the station long before the American government decided to abuse any idea of POWs/protecting the States from "enemy combatants" after 9/11. There have been abuses of citizens' and residents' constitutional rights, some even legislated into law throughout American history. Thing is, the justice system (and every other system created under the US Constitution) was meant to be imperfect and improved upon. And any justice system where we use the lowest common denominator as a judge of how we should expect to be treated and as an ideal sounds like a pretty crappy system.
Of course reasonable doubt does not mean beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, just because a jury felt the defence created a reasonable doubt or the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and you disagree does not mean that they misapplied the law. What do you base that upon? Did the judge give faulty instructions? Was the jury tampered with? Was this a case of mob mentality working the reverse of how it normally does?
This was not a hung jury. This was a jury who returned a verdict after quick deliberation. Do you really think a system is just where a person is given a death sentence (this was a capital case) because even if the no charge more serious than lying to the police was proven (the indictment included capital murder, aggravated manslaughter, child abuse, and lying to the police)? They were meant to return a verdict of abuse, manslaughter, or murder because dumping the body was "nutty"?
I am sure Florida has laws against improper disposal of a body. I am sure they have charges against interfering with a criminal investigation (more serious than lying to the police). I am sure they have laws that would have covered her failure to protect her child from harm without having to prove out and out abuse. She wasn't charged with any of these. Maybe the prosecution was way too sure that their case was open and shut.
DNA and other physical evidence is usually circumstantial by the way. For instance, my husband used to work in forensics and if they had tied say, someone's DNA to a case, unless someone saw the DNA get put there, there was always room to put doubt into how it got there. Most criminal cases are built almost entirely on circumstantial evidence. That doesn't mean that every case that is built entirely on circumstantial evidence is worthy of conviction.
The defence did their job; the prosecution failed to do theirs, at least to the extent where they were able to convince a jury. Maybe they had no way of ever proving the case to a jury, but it's obvious that the case wasn't as open and shut as you were led to believe.
Yes, lets focus on the media... Not on a woman who cared so little about her child that she ( at the very least ) lied about her daughter being missing for 31 days, and invented people to perhaps cover up a genuine accident. She should have been charged with neglect, not just lying. The prosecution dropped the ball on this one.
The media did their job, but people shouldn't mistake them doing their jobs with the justice system doing its job.
Perhaps people would rather we have cases tried on telly with people like Nancy Grace hammering images and easy prejudicial phrases into our heads. Then maybe we could create a straw-man with Geraldo arguing the case for the defence. Nancy can then swoop in and easily dismantle it.
Perhaps how you present evidence, the frequency something is hammered into your head has something to do with the perceptions of just how good the case is against someone?
As someone with the freedom to say I think she was likely a murderer, I think that it's a shame that the prosecution didn't do a better job. Yes, there are times when there simply isn't enough evidence to convict someone of something, but I think they could have managed a more serious charge than lying based upon the evidence they presented. I am surprised that so many people's ire is aimed at an actual functioning aspect of the American justice system and not the prosecutors. Well, not really surprised, but disappointed.
