If convicted of Premeditated Murder, should Casey Anthony get the Death Penalty ?

[Mickalino]

The murder rate in China or Saudia Arabia is a mere fraction of the murder rate in the USA - but at what cost?

I'd wear a Burqa, if it meant a much safer neighborhood

[Stadium-Armory]

I don't totally agree with that, because many killers who are set free, often go out and kill again.

So, by letting a killer go free, many times the result is an innocent person getting killed, or multiple innocents, which makes it not very different from the reverse situation of executing a possibly innocent person.

Predicto is probably the person we need for a legal history discussion, but my limited understanding goes like this. Our system is based on 'due process'. Defendants get lots of protection, and the DA has to prove really really hard, beyond any reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. Why? Because we don't want to send innocent people to jail. Its really important for us to make sure that we err on this side, and not have a system where the state could just declare you guilty and send you to jail without 'due process'. What you describe, is of course a practical concern with this type of system, but the point is that we have to protect the individual rights of each person because individual liberty and freedom are inalienably rights.

I seem to recall something in Constitutional law in college about John Adams putting forth this principle for the first time, while defending the British soldiers who took part in the Boston massacre.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I don't totally agree with that, because many killers who are set free, often go out and kill again.

So, by letting a killer go free, many times the result is an innocent person getting killed, or multiple innocents, which makes it not very different from the reverse situation of executing a possibly innocent person.

You could make the argument though that setting 5 guilty people free doesn't guarantee any innocent people being harmed while executing one innocent person does.

[Mickalino]

You could make the argument though that setting 5 guilty people free doesn't guarantee any innocent people being harmed while executing one innocent person does.

The problem with this statement is that you are assuming that the person is innocent. We're talking about people who end up on death row, and have been convicted of murder, who are possibly innocent. That's the whole argument against the death penalty - not that all of them are innocent, but some of them may be, and you don't know which ones are. So you really cannot compare setting 5 guilty free, to executing one person convicted of murder, in general

[TD_washingtonredskins]

The problem with this statement is that you are assuming that the person is innocent. We're talking about people who end up on death row, and have been convicted of murder, who are possibly innocent. That's the whole argument against the death penalty - not that all of them are innocent, but some of them may be, and you don't know which ones are. So you really cannot compare setting 5 guilty free, to executing one person convicted of murder, in general

Well, let's do it another way....

Let's assume that there is a documented number of people who have been wrongly convicted of murder to put on death row. For the sake of argument, let's say that number equates to 1% (even though I'm sure it's much lower...but I just want to illustrate the point). So, out of 100 people convicted of murder and sentenced to death, 1 innocent person will be executed and lose his or her life. Compare that to whatever similar metric you want to use with the number of people who are truly guilty being set free. Even if you're putting 1,000 guilty people out on the streets for every 1 innocent person you put to death, you're still GUARANTEEING that 1 innocent person is dying while all 1,000 of those guilty parties MAY NOT kill again.

I'm not sure I subscribe to the viewpoint necessarily...but it's a logical argument to me in that only one person in all of the hypotheticals is certain to die: the innocent person you sentenced to death.

[Predicto]

The problem with this statement is that you are assuming that the person is innocent. We're talking about people who end up on death row, and have been convicted of murder, who are possibly innocent. That's the whole argument against the death penalty - not that all of them are innocent, but some of them may be, and you don't know which ones are.

Actually, that is only one of multiple powerful arguments against the death penalty. Just saying.

[skinfan133]

All powers of the state are ceded by the people to the state. All powers of the state are derived from the people. Therefore, the state can posses no powers that the people themselves cannot delegate. Under this logic the death penalty is flawed as an extreme exercise of illegitimate government power as the people do not have the right to kill other people except in self-defense.

I've explained that logic before, but at the same time I don't know if I agree with it, even as a libertarian. There are some people so heinous and that violate people's liberty in such an evil way, that taking them completely out of society for good seems to be the only reasonable solution to preserve the liberty of the people (I'm talking multiple counts of murder at once or on separate occasions). Casey Anthony though? A *****, but she shouldn't die. Lock her up without the possibility of parole, not because she doesn't deserve it (if guilty), but because we are a civilized society.

Actually, that is only one of multiple powerful arguments against the death penalty. Just saying.

Very true. Don't forget the few individuals proven innocent by their tireless lawyers after they've been executed through DNA evidence. The most extreme miscarriage of justice possible imo

[Mickalino]

Well, let's do it another way....

Let's assume that there is a documented number of people who have been wrongly convicted of murder to put on death row. For the sake of argument, let's say that number equates to 1% (even though I'm sure it's much lower...but I just want to illustrate the point). So, out of 100 people convicted of murder and sentenced to death, 1 innocent person will be executed and lose his or her life. Compare that to whatever similar metric you want to use with the number of people who are truly guilty being set free. Even if you're putting 1,000 guilty people out on the streets for every 1 innocent person you put to death, you're still GUARANTEEING that 1 innocent person is dying while all 1,000 of those guilty parties MAY NOT kill again.

I'm not sure I subscribe to the viewpoint necessarily...but it's a logical argument to me in that only one person in all of the hypotheticals is certain to die: the innocent person you sentenced to death.

You're looking at it in a hypothetical, future point of view. I'm looking at a historical, point of view, to set a precedent for future standards. I don't claim to have the stats or percentages, and you can take a random amount of 1000 set-free killers of the present or future, who may not kill again, but the absolute fact is, in the past there have been a large amount of killers set free who have killed again. I keep saying it's happened, and it's happened countless times. You keep saying, "well in our current or future batch of killers it may not happen with these random 1000 killers." The latter statement is not relevant to the point I was making.

[RiggosMohawk]

As long as she is removed from society for the remainder of her life, I don't care what does her in - old age, illness, fellow inmate, or state execution. I would vote to give her a sentence of Life without Parole at Hard Labor.

[Dan T.]

Who is Casey Anthony?

She's a nobody. A remorseless, manipulative, sociopathic, child killing nobody. But a nobody.

Oh, and she's got big boobs and is relatively attractive, so as a result she's also a media sensation.

[Destructis]

I don't know that I agree with this Stadium. I kind of always felt like our legal system was based on Justice. Now, you can argue that it's a dead concept and that's a pretty good argument these days. However, I do still believe that this is what our legal system should be about. It should be about Justice for all.

Justice = Those who can afford to be innocent.

I firmly believe that right now. If you have enough money, in most cases you will get off.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

You keep saying, "well in our current or future batch of killers it may not happen with these random 1000 killers." The latter statement is not relevant to the point I was making.

We just look at the issue differently. I understand and respect your point of view.

[Mickalino]

We just look at the issue differently. I understand and respect your point of view.

Thanks,

Update - Casey Anthony speaks up for the first time in court, and oddly, it pertains to the death penalty. She doesn't take the stand to answer questions, but she pounces up to speak out and support a motion to remove the death penalty in the case, something Caylee didn't have a chance to do :

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/06/29/florida.casey.anthony.trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2011/06/29/bts.casey.anthony.speaks.cnn?hpt=hp_t2

[LadySkinsFan]

I wish they would remove the death penalty. It's harder to prove and I'm not sure they have. That would still leave the murder during the commission of a felony (felony child abuse) which carried life w/o parole. I think a jury would go for that rather than a death penalty. And it would take the mistrial issue off the table.

[DoGood28]

Is there any bigger indication that this girl is guilty than the fact that the defense rests without having her testify? She is obviously the defense's biggest liability.

[Predicto]

Is there any bigger indication that this girl is guilty than the fact that the defense rests without having her testify? She is obviously the defense's biggest liability.

The fact that a defendant does not testify is not proof of anything. The prosecution has to prove its case. The defense doesn't have to prove anything at all.

And there are plenty of legitimate reasons why a defense counsel would not want to put a client on the stand that have nothing to do with ultimate guilt or innocence (I'm not saying that this is one of those cases, just pointing out the general principle).

[Destructis]

Is there any bigger indication that this girl is guilty than the fact that the defense rests without having her testify? She is obviously the defense's biggest liability.

Not necessarily. Some people just aren't good at testifying. It doesn't mean she is guilty because she didn't, it means she would have been crappy on the stand.

I am not saying she is innocent, I am just saying her lawyer didn't want her to get up there.

[McD5]

The highlight of the day was the kid that was just found in contempt.

He flicked off the prosecutor, and was sentenced to 6 days in jail, and a $600 fine immediately.

[DoGood28]

The fact that a defendant does not testify is not proof of anything. The prosecution has to prove its case. The defense doesn't have to prove anything at all.

And there are plenty of legitimate reasons why a defense counsel would not want to put a client on the stand that have nothing to do with ultimate guilt or innocence (I'm not saying that this is one of those cases, just pointing out the general principle).

I didn't say it proved anything. Use a little common sense and assume for once. You're not part of the jury Predicto. Using the information you know, what is your early verdict on the case?

[Chump Bailey]

The highlight of the day was the kid that was just found in contempt.

He flicked off the prosector, and was sentenced to 6 days in jail, and a $600 fine immediately.

Saw that. I felt sorry for the guy initially because I thought he was just a kid in high school. I think they said he's 28. What a moron.

[Predicto]

I didn't say it proved anything. Use a little common sense and assume for once. You're not part of the jury Predicto. Using the information you know, what is your early verdict on the case?

I think she is guilty because of the evidence that we have seen and the underlying circumstances.

But not because she didn't go up on the stand. Assuming guilt from refusal to testify would be an inappropriate use of common sense, but people do it all the time. Just like people assume that someone is guilty because they got arrested in the first place. That's all I was saying.

[LadySkinsFan]

A defendant does not have to testify and the judge will instruct the jury that they should not infer guilt just because she didn't testify, self-incrimination and all that (5th Amendment). I'm sure the sociopath in her wanted to testify so she could spin some more lies, but her credibility is totally shot because of all the lies she told police and those recordings have already been played in their entirety in court. So which Casey should jurors ulitimately believe: the one in the police tapes or the one on the stand?

I don't think there is much there on premeditation unless the prosecution during rebuttal can show that Cindy Anthony was at work during those internet searches and the only one could have been Casey. That won't go will with Cindy who could then be prosecuted for perjury.

Casey has messed up this family. I want to know what she was doing all those years when she was supposed to be working at Universal Studios and she was getting money from somewhere. I'm sure the police/prosecution investigated all that, but whatever they found out wasn't relevant to this particular case, so we probably will never know.

The new twist is the supposed grandmother of Caylee, who thinks her son was the father of Caylee. That will be determined after all this is over, as an answer to a mystery. I'm sure George, Cindy and Lee could care less at this point and just want to go back and pick up the pieces of their lives.

As for Casey, I hope she rots in jail for the rest of her life.

[Chachie]

Casey has messed up this family. I want to know what she was doing all those years when she was supposed to be working at Universal Studios and she was getting money from somewhere. I'm sure the police/prosecution investigated all that, but whatever they found out wasn't relevant to this particular case, so we probably will never know.

The new twist is the supposed grandmother of Caylee, who thinks her son was the father of Caylee. That will be determined after all this is over, as an answer to a mystery. I'm sure George, Cindy and Lee could care less at this point and just want to go back and pick up the pieces of their lives.

As for Casey, I hope she rots in jail for the rest of her life.

The layers of both overt and implied dysfunction in this family are so numerous it's horrifying. As much as I want to condemn her (and still will) there is indeed some twisted sort of truth to her side of the story and to her being a product of some bad, bad things.

[LadySkinsFan]

Yeah, but one doesn't kill one's kid. That is the work of a sociopath with a bent for murder to obtain their freedom. Very sick. I think also that the parents never said NO to her. I can tell you that when my kid encountered the legal system for the first time (disorderly conduct) you can bet I made sure that she felt the full force of her actions in the legal system (age 15) to the point that she has never been in trouble ever again. I saw plenty of parents, while sitting waiting for the system to grind on through the cases, who sought to get their kids off of minor things, make excuses, instead of making these children know what their future would be like if they didn't toe the line. As juveniles, it doesn't follow them around.

I don't think that ever happened for Casey, she never had to pay any consequences for her behavior. So when her child became too much of an inconvenience, she got rid of her.

[Mickalino]

4) The mother works for the State, and they have undisputable records that show she was AT WORK during the times those sites were visited on the computer.

She is an exempt employee. Meaning there are days she is listed as at home, where she is actually at work. If you are exempt, all timesheets do is state you worked 8 hours. I am exempt. Some days I work 12. Others I work 6. My timesheet will sat I was at work 8 hours each day. It is common. All they have stated they have is timesheets. If Ashton had more, he woulda grilled her about it.

They DO have more. And your assumption is being proved wrong right now in the courtroom. You need to tune in, if you want to know the whole story. It's not about paper timesheets. Right now the prosecution has a witness who is a computer expert, testitying that computer records, not timesheets, show that Cindy Anthony logged into her computer in specific applications at certain times, which contradict her statements.

I hope she gets perjury charges.