Readers react Casey Anthony being acquitted of murdering her two-year-old daughter Caylee.
On Tuesday, Florida native Casey Anthony was acquitted of murdering her two-year-old daughter Caylee in 2008. As the highly-publicized trial came to a close, Anthony, 25, cried after the not guilty verdict was read. If she was convicted of first-degree murder, Anthony could have faced the death penalty.
In this image made from video, Casey Anthony smiles as she returns to the defense table after being acquitted of murder charges at the Orange County Courthouse in Orlando, Fla., Tuesday, July 5, 2011. She had been charged with killing her daughter Caylee. (AP Photo/Pool)Some of the MassLive.com readers believe Anthony should have been convicted, while others are quick to defend the American judicial system. Here's what they had to say:
jackie says: So disgusted with the verdict. I watched this trial from day 1 & in my opinion, she's guilty. So now she gets sentenced on thursday for lying to the cops. She could get up to 1 yr. each. So, she could get 4 yrs. or less. Actually, she should've got life without parole.
dontbeignerint says: The irony here is that saying that common sense (however you define it as it relates to you) should form any basis at all for a judgement in a murder trial is an incredibly poor display of actual common sense. The entire point of jury selection is to filter out the lunatics who will gladly put someone in the chair based on a gut instinct or, as you put it, "common sense". Real common sense should be tell you to thank God you live in a country that doesn't convict based on public opinion.
Wooden Nickel says: The jury ignored the facts..... Casey was the only one with
opportunity and motive and the only one linked to the crime. This child didn't wrap the duct tape around her own head and climb into the trash bags, nor did she roll herself over to the woods. Even if they couldn't see their way to a murder verdict they should have gone for manslaughter.
LenE says: Glad there are at least two of us who stick with the objective rule of law. There are so many emotional lunatics who demand a "pound of flesh" and will take it from the first person that someone points the finger at. That's why Barry Scheckter(?) has been able to clear so many wrongly convicted people with new DNA forensics. And states are paying millions of dollars in reparations to wrongly convicted people, all because too many prosecutors are more concerned about "winning" and too many jurors want to send someone, anyone, to jail to avenge the victim.
gbn says: If a jury can find not guilty in the face of the facts in this case, the jury instruction process obviously needs to be changed. Reasonable doubt needs to be defined. Every juror in a capital murder case ought to have to take a seminar in understanding reasonable doubt before being in charge of either putting someone to death or letting them go. 2 plus 2 plus 2 might make 6, but with the jury instructions/rules of evidence as they are apparently being understood, they are only allowed to look at two 2's, the rules say (they think). Therefore, while they know the total is actually 6, based on the rules of court, they come up with a 4. Makes no sense in terms of reaching the truth, or justice.