As I trust most people not living under a rock know, Casey Anthony was released from prison today. I have no opinion on her innocence or guilt, but I know that many people do. The day the verdict came in, the restaurant I work in was all abuzz with news about the jury, the lawyers, the evidence, etc. Several people even referred to the verdict as Casey Anthony "pulling an O.J." I did not follow the trial, since most of the country was morbidly fascinated by it, and it left a sour taste in my mouth. I think the comment I heard the most with regard to Casey Anthony was "she's guilty". This was in clear contrast to the jury's verdict of "not guilty", and I assume, because of it as well.
I have since heard all I need to hear about the case, and in my honest opinion, the jury reached the correct verdict. Being an amateur law enthusiast since I was twelve and having heard the relevant evidence, I'm fairly certain the jury could not have convicted Ms. Anthony, even if they'd wanted to. Though it sounds as if the evidence pointed to her, there was nothing that pointed to her exclusively. No, not even the heart sticker. It is sickening and very sad that Caylee Anthony's killer (whoever it was) escaped justice, but I think this case was actually a triumph for the American legal system.
This will obviously sound preposterous to any person who believes Casey is the murderer, and even to some people who are outraged that anyone would kill a little girl, but hear me out. The American legal system was set up in deliberate contrast to those of Europe at the time. The accused is always presumed innocent, and the burden of proof for a crime rests squarely on the shoulders of the prosecution. This burden of proof is also very high, as the defendant must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that if any jury can come up with a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, then they cannot convict. This is a good thing, and it has kept many wrongfully accused people from going to prison. It has, unfortunately, also allowed guilty people to go free, and innocent people to be incarcerated.
Looking at much of the world today, Casey Anthony's case is a beacon of justice where there is often no semblance of the thing. Think of the middle east, where women are killed for being raped because they have "dishonored" their families. Think of China, where the government can simply take a private citizen and torture or kill him for writing an unfavorable article in a newspaper or emailing foreigners about what life in that country is really like. Think even of Europe, where many Christians have lost their jobs, not been allowed to adopt, and even brought in front of hate crimes tribunals because they have not kept quiet about what they believe. Casey Anthony received a fair trial by a jury of her peers, and even though the Court of Public Opinion had already convicted her, the court in Florida did not do so because they knew they could not, no matter what they personally believed.
Much about the brouhaha around this case has frustrated me, because I have seen good people deny the United States' principles of justice in favor of wishing that the jury had just found Casey Anthony guilty because they wanted them to. This does not make these individuals less good as humans, but it is sad to see that we as a people still would rather mete out justice as we please, rather than give someone the fair trial they deserve. As Catholics, we should be especially careful about this, because just as we often cannot know what others have done, we can never know what is in their souls, and we should never presume to condemn the innocent until they are proven guilty. Really, we should never presume to condemn anyone, period, but even legally, we should hold off with expressing our opinions until all the facts are in evidence.
But, one might protest, what if all the facts are not in evidence? What if they never are? Well, then we must do the right thing, and risk allowing a guilty person to go free rather than causing him to suffer at the behest of the majority. As 18th century British judge William Blackstone famously said, "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". And guess what? He's right. God can forgive the sins of the guilty, and we have no right to punish the innocent. We have enshrined that in our legal system with the requirement to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". We fall into a trap sometimes, and think that it is incumbent upon us to mete out justice, and to some degree this works. However, we would do well to remember that we are not God, and that even if a person escapes temporal justice, another justice awaits them later on.
Additionally, allowing justice by mob rule is never a good idea. When societies allow this "justice" to take place, the majority often pays no heed to whether or not the accused is actually guilty, and bases its action on what it perceives is proof of guilt. These are the cases when a group of people, no matter how well meaning, take "justice" too far, and someone often ends up dead. This is not America, and because the founders of our legal system knew that allowing mob rule would be dangerous, they opted instead to give each man the benefit of the doubt. Even with all the abuses and inadequacies of the current legal system, it is better than majority rule. Therefore, I am comfortable with the Casey Anthony verdict as it stands, and I will continue to hope that whoever is responsible for Caylee Anthony's death will be brought to justice someday. And by justice, I mean real, American justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment