Jury Duty? Would you?

[Lanie]

This will probably get moved. However, I just HAVE to voice this after reading posts about wanting Casey to be stoned, etc. I must say that though I feel in my heart she is most likely guilty - this is STILL America where people are innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. I would want a fair trial and not a trial by media if I were in trouble. Not to say I in any way believe her stories after what I have seen. But even Casey is innocent until proven guilty. Am I the only one who feels this way?

I don't think anyone would really stone her, it's more just venting. And innocent until proven guilty is actually for a court of law, not the general public.
If your child told you someone had molested them, would you still allow your child to be around this person, because they are innocent until proven guilty? Extreme scenario, but every one of us comes up against these judgement calls in day to day life. To have any kind of expectation that the general public is not allowed to have suspicions or beliefs about others, regardless of their actions, until they have gone to court and been convicted, would never work.
Lanie

 

[Samijeansg]

Maybe she should have thought about that before she killed her daughter? Just sayin...

 

[magic-cat]

This will probably get moved. However, I just HAVE to voice this after reading posts about wanting Casey to be stoned, etc. I must say that though I feel in my heart she is most likely guilty - this is STILL America where people are innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. I would want a fair trial and not a trial by media if I were in trouble. Not to say I in any way believe her stories after what I have seen. But even Casey is innocent until proven guilty. Am I the only one who feels this way?

In a court of law are your key words here. There is also a thing, in America, that allows for freedom of the press and freedom of speech, and with that lovely right comes the ability for individuals to form opinions of their own and to also express those opinions, whether by verbalizing, writing, demonstrating or whatever peaceful means they see fit. I will give you a perfect example of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law: Andrea Yates. There was no doubt whatsoever than Andrea Yates drowned all five of her children. There was no doubt that she acted alone and was guilty of those murders. There was no doubt that she called her hubby and told him she committed the murders, BUT she was STILL presumed innocent until convicted either by a judge or by a jury of her peers. As evidence presents itself, folks form opinions and then they form opinions on what THEY believe should be the punishments. LUCKILY, as this is the good old USA, none of those beliefs are what will convict nor decide punishment...here is where your court of law comes in...

 

[Marsha]

This will probably get moved. However, I just HAVE to voice this after reading posts about wanting Casey to be stoned, etc. I must say that though I feel in my heart she is most likely guilty - this is STILL America where people are innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. I would want a fair trial and not a trial by media if I were in trouble. Not to say I in any way believe her stories after what I have seen. But even Casey is innocent until proven guilty. Am I the only one who feels this way?

Judicially and in theory, YES, you are right.

But realistically NO..............O.J. (in the murder trial) was innocent until proven not guilty! NOT!!

 

[magic-cat]

I don't think anyone would really stone her, it's more just venting. And innocent until proven guilty is actually for a court of law, not the general public.
If your child told you someone had molested them, would you still allow your child to be around this person, because they are innocent until proven guilty? Extreme scenario, but every one of us comes up against these judgement calls in day to day life. To have any kind of expectation that the general public is not allowed to have suspicions or beliefs about others, regardless of their actions, until they have gone to court and been convicted, would never work.
Lanie

If it is determined, in a court of law and beyond a reasonable doubt that she is guilty of murdering her innocent child, I would HAPPILY volunteer to be on the stoning crew...I would.:furious:

 

[krimekat]

Judicially and in theory, yes you are right.

But realistically no, O.J. (in the murder trial) was innocent until proven not guilty! NOT!!

But I am a firm believer in what comes around goes around . . . karma . . . and eye for an eye . . . and frankly, it is about time Casey go back to jail!

 

[PaperDoll]

I know our law says Presumed Innocent until Proven Guilty, but I think she's guilty.. However, I don't want to stone her.. I do believe her day will come, it usually does.

 

[SharetheLight]

Innocent until proven guilty by a judge or jury of your peers if for the legal system only. You cannot be punished for a crime by law until you are PROVEN guilty by a judge or a jury of peers. You are considered innocent in the judicial system until proven guilty.
This has more to do with punishment by a governing authority.
Outside the judicial system people form their own ideas with the information they receive. Casey isn't giving people any infomation. Silence is a decision. In a court of law nothing can be presumed by a defendent's silence but in the real world silence speaks volumes.

 

[Ilenser]

I'll show up for jury duty wearing a " I Break for Squirrels " T-shirt.

 

[dsd07]

This will probably get moved. However, I just HAVE to voice this after reading posts about wanting Casey to be stoned, etc. I must say that though I feel in my heart she is most likely guilty - this is STILL America where people are innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. I would want a fair trial and not a trial by media if I were in trouble. Not to say I in any way believe her stories after what I have seen. But even Casey is innocent until proven guilty. Am I the only one who feels this way?

Yes, innocent until proven guilty, but most of us on here have read every shred of evidence that has been put out there. Audio, video, transcripts, pings, maps, phone calls, you name it....for anyone to read all of that and still think there is a chance she didnt do it should be in the loony bin.

 

[CaliKid]

I thank God for our rights as Americans to jury trials and proof of innocence. But IMO, this chick is guilty as h*!!.

 

[Gaia713]

I know I could remain impartial as I would wait to see what the evidence is. Unfortunately, I've never been picked for a jury because I've been an educator and lawyers don't like educators on a jury. Been down to the wire on two separate occasions - one was a murder, too. But they always toss me.

 

[LCoastMom]

Not out of the state Private Eye, but I'm thinking they well may try and get a "Change of Venue" That's one of the reason's OJ Simpson got off. That trial should have been tried in the Brentwood Court District and believe me that jury was hand picked.........

xxxxxxxoooo
mama
:blowkiss::blowkiss:

I worked 60 hours a week through out the whole OJ mess, so I missed almost everything, until the jury came back with a verdict. Unless you were blind and deaf, if you lived in So Cal you saw the verdict. The fear on the street was palpable.

The race riots were too fresh in everyones mind for OJ to be convicted. It didn't matter if anyone thought he did it or not, the verdict was a given. IMHO

Did anyone think he wouldn't be convicted in Vegas?

 

[LCoastMom]

I would be on the jury in a heart beat. It would be a honor to be part of our Judicial System.

But I am fairly sure when I walk in the court room wearing my Squirrel Costume and ask, When can we Fry the SPITEFUL B@TCH they would excuse me.

:blowkiss:

 

[LCoastMom]

Decided to explain my laughter with your post. I was called to jury duty 2 years ago. I have lived in Palm Beach County FL for 10 years. My husband was terminally ill at the time. Judge let me off the hook. Then my husband died a month later (this was Oct 2006).

Eight months ago my deceased husband was called for Jury duty in Palm Beach County, FL. I called them...said geeeez, he DIED in this county, what kiind of records do you keep? Was told they have NO WAY of knowing this type of stuff. They asked if I would send them his death certificate. I did not. They are now threatening to hold him in contempt of court. Maybe I have a sick sense of humor, but I have decided to wait for the sherrif to come to the door and serve him papers. At that time I will hand him my husbands urn and say "have at him". My point being is even being dead in this County does not seem to be an excuse.

Wow! This is how they treat potential jurors? Imagine the love for convicted baby killers!

Hang tough Susan! :blowkiss:

 

[LCoastMom]

In a court of law are your key words here. There is also a thing, in America, that allows for freedom of the press and freedom of speech, and with that lovely right comes the ability for individuals to form opinions of their own and to also express those opinions, whether by verbalizing, writing, demonstrating or whatever peaceful means they see fit. I will give you a perfect example of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law: Andrea Yates. There was no doubt whatsoever than Andrea Yates drowned all five of her children. There was no doubt that she acted alone and was guilty of those murders. There was no doubt that she called her hubby and told him she committed the murders, BUT she was STILL presumed innocent until convicted either by a judge or by a jury of her peers. As evidence presents itself, folks form opinions and then they form opinions on what THEY believe should be the punishments. LUCKILY, as this is the good old USA, none of those beliefs are what will convict nor decide punishment...here is where your court of law comes in...

The difference with Andrea Yates and most murders is she called her husband and told him what she had done. She told LE what she had done. I can't think of any other child killer in recent history to confess immediately following their actions. Andrea Yates could hardly be presumed innocent after telling everyone what she had done!

The question with Andrea was did she commit her actions in a sound mind or was she insane when she took her kids one at a time and drown them in the bathtub. The answer to that was self evident, no mother in a sane mind would have held her children under water until they were dead. The Yates story was one of the saddest and most preventable that our courts have ever seen and our laws are not set up to deal with such a situation.

Adrea's psychological problems went back for years, doctors warning her husband against her becoming pregnant due to severe post-partum psychosis
was ignored, as was his failure to continue her psychological treatment.

I have never understood punishing Andrea Yates.

as always MOO

 

[Jennerbear]

I agree this is a message board and we should be able to vent everything we want to and it is just our opinion. I have read almost all of the evidence (not the latest 400 pages - I'm trying to buy a horse - not enough time)... but I just got really sad for some reason that someone said that about stoning her. I am actually FOR the death penalty - but for some reason stoning just brings about images of torture. I suppose that if it were a molestor with my child I would want to torture him/her... however I know that WHATEVER happens that God is the ULTIMATE judge for this gal. Didn't mean to stir up a hornets nest. I DO believe based on evidence that she is guilty - don't get me wrong.

 

[Law_girl41]

As much as I detest the sight of the girl in this case. I could do it and I would do it, because I believe in being fair....but IMO the defense will have to show reasonable edvidence just as much as the prosecution.

 

[Sleuth5]

I'd have to choose an unlisted alternative -- "There is no way I would willingly spend a moment in the company of the Anthonys in the same room." Seriously, I'd rather have food poisoning for days than look at Casey's smug face and Momma's self-righteous eye rolling. I don't think they will be able to seat a jury if any of them really think about what kind of an ordeal that prospect will present.

 

[nancy botwin]

The difference with Andrea Yates and most murders is she called her husband and told him what she had done. She told LE what she had done. I can't think of any other child killer in recent history to confess immediately following their actions. Andrea Yates could hardly be presumed innocent after telling everyone what she had done!

The question with Andrea was did she commit her actions in a sound mind or was she insane when she took her kids one at a time and drown them in the bathtub. The answer to that was self evident, no mother in a sane mind would have held her children under water until they were dead. The Yates story was one of the saddest and most preventable that our courts have ever seen and our laws are not set up to deal with such a situation.

Adrea's psychological problems went back for years, doctors warning her husband against her becoming pregnant due to severe post-partum psychosis
was ignored, as was his failure to continue her psychological treatment.

I have never understood punishing Andrea Yates.

as always MOO

I agree-- I read "Are You There Alone: The Unspeakable Crimes of Andrea Yates" and realized how sad and preventable that story really was.