<p>
</p>
<p>Do you take this same position when you believe someone has been wrongfully convicted of a crime? All those people in the world fighting to reverse “unjust” convictions should just shut up and “respect” the verdict simply because a jury says so?</p>
<p>I have no idea who killed the poor babe so take no position against the verdict in this case, but to say one should always “respect” a jury’s verdict seems contrary to common sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, there is a difference. To get someone freed who was wrongfully convicted you have to go back through the system and it is the system that makes the decision. So you are respecting the system.</p>
<p>The concept of double jeopardy is part of that system. The govenment gets one shot once jeopardy attaches.</p>
<p>Respect the verdict as it pertains to how you treat the person in question.</p>
<p>Also, the scenarios are radically different if you think about it.</p>
<p>Here we have a person that was found not guilty being demonized by the media and others. On the flip side we have a person that was found guilty with people disagreeing with the verdict.</p>
<p>That does not amount to the same scenario because there’s nothing worse than an innocent person that was incorrectly put in jail.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>EDIT: NO… </p>
<p>When someone is found not guilty it is usually because 1) the DA/police screwed up or 2) the person is truly not guilty or 3) there is no evidence.</p>
<p>When someone is found guilty there are all sort of areas of potential breakdown, DA/police misconduct, errors in evidence collection, mistaken witnesses, etc. These people get to appeal convictions and utilize other methods to fight sometimes and the hope is that those that are innocent get caught in the process and released but we know that is rarely the case. They tend to sit in jail for long periods of time.</p>
<p>The benefit of the doubt always leans towards the defendant.</p>
<p>That’s why you respect the not guilty verdict. The guilty verdict not so much…</p>
<p>[Child</a> dead; mother in custody](<a href=“http://thesouthern.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_f8ccb212-b28b-11e0-86d1-001cc4c002e0.html]Child”>http://thesouthern.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_f8ccb212-b28b-11e0-86d1-001cc4c002e0.html)</p>
<p>Not quite the extreme, but we’ll see if this gets national coverage…</p>
<p>*I know for myself and a lot of others here that have stated that they believe that Casey had something to do with Caylees death that they also would not want any harm to come to Casey because of the verdict. I also, however, do not wish her a charmed, wealthy, care-free life either. I dont like her and I wish her a long, hard road and thats it."
*</p>
<p>Exactly. </p>
<p>Who the heck would want this girl to profit if she did have something to do with Caylee 's death…even if the extent was putting the pool steps up and then getting distracted. And, even more so since she so obnoxiously handled and disposed of the body.</p>
<p>I don’t know of ANYONE who would want a parent to profit…even if their child’s death was accidental.</p>
<p>*Casey Anthony is crazy as a Betsy-bug. There’s your “human behavior and motivation” in a nutshell. *</p>
<p>I don’t think Casey is crazy at all. I think she has a personality disorder. I think she’s a sociopath and perhaps also has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. She’s intelligent, charming, clever, and a fabulous actress. She’s not crazy.</p>
<p>If Casey doesn’t make some substantial bucks she cannot pay all the people and entities suing her. Don’t you think Florida, the bounty hunter, the search group and the lady who may have been slandered want her to profit in order that they can be compensated if they establish their claims? </p>
<p>Heck I’d imagine that a lot of media outlets and talking heads would love to have Casey take a swing at “going public” in order to keep their own cash flowing from covering/commenting on it.</p>
<p>I’m trying to understand what “respect the verdict” even means. The verdict determines solely whether the state can punish the defendant and has no other effect. It certainly doesn’t determine how society or any individual should or may evaluate the events or the defendant. Like the rest of us, Casey Anthony has to live in the world where she is judged by her behavior. If I imprison Casey in my basement, I suppose that would be disrespectful of the verdict. Having an opinion about her culpability or character is not.</p>
<p>*[The jury’s] belief that George may have killed Caylee is a strong indication of their lack of mental capacity. Not their verdict. Their verdict can be argued. Their belief that Geo may have killed Caylee cannot be logically argued…at all. *</p>
<p>jsanche…</p>
<p>OK…so where’s the rational argument and evidence that would lead to the belief that George killed Caylee??? Even the defense clearly stated that George did not have anything to do with Caylee’s death.</p>
<p>Yes, as a citizen you are fully expected to respect the verdict. What’s the point of having a jury system if you’re just going to disagree with them when its contrary to your own position?</p>
<p>I am not “fully expected” to respect verdicts. Where is that law???</p>
<p>And, neither are defense attys…which is why many will still insist that their client is innocent after conviction. When have you ever heard a defense atty declare that his client is innocent, and then after the conviction, say, “oh well, I guess he really was guilty because the jury said so.”???</p>
<p>Do you think that Scott Peterson’s current atty “respects” and accepts his client’s verdict? NO, he thinks his client is innocent, hence the appeals. Do you think Scott’s family “respects” the jury’s verdict? No. </p>
<p>Do you think most of America respects the OJ verdict? Do you???</p>
<p>only the legal system of judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, etc have to respect the jury’s decision.</p>
<p>Just follow what Jeff Ashton has said. That is respecting the verdict.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See, Jeff isn’t flaming Casey. I did read an interesting bit that suggested that Jeff might not want a boycott/backlash against anyone making money off books about Caylee’s death because he wants to write a book a la the OJ prosecutor.</p>
<p>I respect oj’s verdict</p>
<p>Sent from my ADR6300 using CC App</p>
<p>I respect OJ’s verdict too.</p>
<p>mom2ck… see an earlier post…apparently cindy is writing a book that does say george was involved and the defense was right!!! so either she is lying now, lying then…but the outrage that everyone thought they should feel that their daughter accused them…if true that george helped, then they let casey take the fall!! YIKES to this family…bizarre</p>
<p>i posted earlier…i had no problem with the verdict in oj case…i watched every minute of that one</p>
<p>Me too. No way OJ should have been convicted on the murder charge.</p>
<p>The burglary charge, however, was his own fault. Silliness.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, he clarified. One must only respect Not Guilty verdicts. </p>
<p>Also, Defense Attorneys don’t necessarily believe their clients are innocent. Many of them know for a fact that they are not innocent. Even if they know their clients to be guilty, they will work to get a Not Guilty verdict because that is what they are paid to do. They will also work hard to appeal a guilty verdict for a client that they know to be guilty because that is what they are paid to do.</p>
<p>Not to say that Defense Attorneys don’t ever believe in their clients’ innocence. Of course they do. Sometimes rightfully, other times mistakenly. They are just as capable of being right, wrong, and suspect of motive as prosecutors because they are human beings, and human beings often have shady motives for their behavior as well as noble ones.</p>
<p>Also, Defense Attorneys don’t necessarily believe their clients are innocent</p>
<p>Good heavens…we all know that. That wasn’t my point.</p>
<p>*mom2ck… see an earlier post…apparently cindy is writing a book that does say george was involved and the defense was right!!! so either she is lying now, lying then…but the outrage that everyone thought they should feel that their daughter accused them…if true that george helped, then they let casey take the fall!! YIKES to this family…bizarre *</p>
<p>I heard the interview. Hearsay…and inaccurate. The distant relative said that Casey would leave jail and go home to Cindy. Did that happen? No. Don’t see any reason to believe this lady.</p>
<p>The really interesting part of all of this is when you compare and contrast the commentaries directed at Casey and Nancy Grace for their respective behaviors.</p>
<p>With Casey, you have people demonizing her because she doesn’t act in a way that society recognizes as normal, but more importantly, as tactful. Apparently, you can’t be happy (and smile) that you were found not guilty of murdering your child after being in solitary/jail for a few years. You must remain somber at all times to show you are deeply hurt. <-----------That, to me, is acting btw. </p>
<p>With Nancy Grace, you have a person that is essentially destroying people’s lives via the manipulation of the emotions of a fairly large cross-section of the population. Yes, I do say destroy because that’s kind of what she does. And she doesn’t do it to just one person, she does it repeatedly. And she’s lauded for it. See: Luke Lacrosse Case.</p>
<p>The fact of the matter is, she has not apologized for either the Duke Lacrosse case or the current Casey Anthony case. I think a truly honest and objective person would go back to the case, and go over the evidence line by line in order to understand what exactly they made a mistake in, ultimately, in order to correct their POV. But she has done neither. She’s arrogant enough to think that her POV is still correct (Something some posters in this thread and her have in common)</p>
<p>That above ^^^^ does not say good things about the current state of our society. It would seem that we have not learned our lessons. The Nancy Grace’s of the world are far more dangerous to us than Casey ever will be.</p>
<p>I think that the fundamental area of disagreement is in the separation of thought/feeling/opinion from action.</p>
<p>I have a right to disagree with a jury, even if my opinion is based on incomplete or false information (hypothetical).</p>
<p>I also have the right to hate anyone (hate being defined here as a feeling, not a verb).</p>
<p>I don’t have a right to act on my hate or inflict harm on someone due to my disagreement with a jury or due to my feeling of hate for that individual.</p>
<p>Nobody can tell another that it is wrong to hate. Feelings are never wrong or right, they are just…feelings. Actions are subject to moral judgement because there are consequences to actions. Feelings only have consequences if they result in action.</p>