With the acquittal of the murder charge as well as the child abuse charges against Casey Anthony, the internet erupted in a furor as the majority of commentators questioned how someone who, in their opinion, was guilty as sin, could be found not guilty. Did the prosecutors drop the ball and not present the evidence in a way that could sway the jury? Did the defense team pull miracles out of their back pockets? The jurors themselves have commented that they all believed that she is guilty but that the evidence presented was not enough to convict.
How does someone look at the evidence presented before them and decide they are not guilty of a charge and yet believe that the accused is guilty? The jury obviously followed their instructions from the judge and looked at all the evidence that was presented and made their decision based upon that. It was the right thing to do. Why do they believe that Casey Anthony is guilty though? If the evidence did not support their belief, why do they believe it? Do they believe what they see on CSI and expect all evidence to be as convincing as a television show?
Is it that the actions of the accused while her child was missing was inappropriate at very least? Was it that from what they saw in court that the defendant did not appear to be remorseful? Or did the general belief held by all who have followed the story that the defendant did it? Three years before the court case, as facts appeared in newspapers and online, people began to build their own opinion on what had happened, and their often ill informed views, spread out like a virus. In short, the public had already found Casey Anthony guilty before she had her day in court.
For the rest of her life, Casey Anthony will be viewed as someone who murdered her child and got away with it. Regardless that she has been cleared of the charges, she is branded for life as a murderer. Just like another defendant in a highly publicized case, where the evidence presented failed to garner a conviction although most people believe that O.J. Simpson was guilty.
Is it better to be found guilty of a crime, and then serve the time rather than to be accused and then either be found not guilty or if the case doesn’t even make it to court? While Iron Mike Tyson was convicted of rape and served three years of a six year sentence, and today can be found doing cameos in movies, as well as even having his own reality TV show. Craig MacTavish was convicted of vehicular homicide while driving drunk and served a year. Afterwards he would win several Stanley Cups as a player and go on to coach several teams. Leslie Grantham, Dirty Den in Eastenders, served ten years for killing a German taxi driver in 1966. This didn’t stop him from starring in the hugely successful soap set in East London.
Perhaps defense attorneys who look at a defense plan of getting their client convicted of a crime so that once they are released they will no longer be haunted by it?