[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: Casey Anthony: Referendum On Police? We got the verdict. The only convictions were on four counts of lying to the police. Now the armchair quarterbacking begins by the media, many of whom tried and convicted Casey all on their own. The last several hours have been nothing but news media wonks telling us that they know that this woman was guilty and the jury "got it wrong" and that the jury "didn't get the whole story." But the legal duty of the prosecutor is to present the full story in the courtroom. Not where you can run whatever sort of character assassination you wish in the media, not where you can make all sorts of claims without rebuttal, and certainly not where there are no rules of evidence or procedure all of which are part and parcel of the media and The Internet. I did not watch the trial. I did, however, watch the closing arguments of both sides. And this case came down to one (and only one) thing - credibility of the prosecution. Credibility that the prosecution severely damaged all on their own when the DA was smirking at his desk while the defense was making closing arguments. Was there something funny about what was going on in that courtroom? I think not. There was no physical evidence tying Casey to the death of her daughter. There was a lot of circumstantial evidence. But the standard of proof in a criminal case is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Not "I think she did it", "the evidence suggests she did it", or "it's more likely than not that she did it." The jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it. In this case, not only was that standard not met it was instantly obvious to the jury that it was not. They had little more time than to elect a foreman and take a couple of straw ballots before the verdict came back. It must be presumed, given the speed of the verdict, that all the members of the jury went into the deliberation room convinced that the state did not make its case. Now let's ask the question nobody wants to ask: How much has the credibility of the police departments of this nation, including particularly those in Florida, been damaged by the very acts of these departments? Let's look at this from a perspective of public trust. Have the police and district attorney earned that trust? How many of the jurors perhaps received some sort of treatment that they considered to be unjust at the hands of law enforcement in the past? The percentage has done nothing but climb in the last couple of decades, whether it be an unjust traffic citation to knowing someone that was unlawfully (and unreasonably) harassed - whether on the side of the road or in an airport. It only takes once, either personally or among someone you know well and thus trust, to change your standard view of law enforcement from "they're trustworthy and honest" to "they're liars and I demand strict proof." How badly have the actions of our law enforcement agencies, from Ruby Ridge to Waco to the cop running a radar or laser picket near a conveniently-placed speed limit sign to the jackbooted midnight raids and the myriad people imprisoned for years or even decades on fabricated or bogus "evidence" and then later exonerated damaged or even destroyed public trust in law enforcement? This is precisely the sort of thing I've raised many times in the Ticker over the last few years. Law enforcement needs the people - not the other way around. When that trust and faith is damaged or destroyed not only do the people stop cooperating but in addition the burden of proof goes up a lot, especially in cases where you do not get a "do over" (such as a capital murder crime.) The prosecution lost due to failure to make their case. But the legacy of this decision should be not on whether there was a miscarriage of justice but rather why we, the people tolerate public corruption, jackbooted "law enforcement" and police state tactics in the general sense. We are well past the point where we must demand that this crap stop in our society and the protections ensconced in our Constitution be protected and enforced, not used for cop toilet paper. No more TSA rapescans and sticking hands down the pants of 95 year old leukemia patients. No more banksters breaking into houses they don't own. No more speed traps, abusive "no knock" raids when old-fashioned police work would more than suffice, "shoot any dog that moves" and other similar rank abuses of power. The cops can, of course, refuse to withdraw to within the boundaries of the Constitution as written and continue to argue that "safety" demands they be able to do whatever the hell they want, including shooting your dog and deaf woodcarvers. But the people have the right, as we saw today, to turn an increasingly-jaundiced eye toward claimed evidence presented by these police officers and other members of the prosecuting side of the table, and increase their level of skepticism that in fact what they're being presented (and "sold") in court is in fact actual evidence and not an invention of a prosecutorial system that is more interested in putting notches on a stick and destroying lives rather than searching for the truth.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: christine (#0)
Excellent break-down of the current situation.
There are no replies to Comment # 1. End Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||