Casey Anthony Trial: Why We Don't Need the Death Penalty
After years of being prosecuted by Nancy Grace, and weeks of being prosecuted in a real courtroom, Casey Anthony has been acquitted by a jury of murder charges that could have left her facing execution.
Her acquittal of murder comes after a three-year media frenzy during which her guilt was more or less presumed. Some followers of the trial, saturated by this media coverage, were shocked by the verdict. Defense attorneys blasted the media circus (and the lawyers who participated in it).
Attorney Cheney Mason said:
“I’m disgusted by some of the lawyers that have done this. I can tell you that my colleagues from coast to coast and border to border have condemned this whole process of lawyers getting on television and talking about cases they don’t know a damn thing about.”
Jose Baez added that:
“We have the greatest Constitution in the world, and if the media and other members of the public do not respect it, it will become meaningless.”
He was referring to core constitutional concepts like “trial by jury” and “innocent until proven guilty.”
Nancy Grace was not happy. After managing to get in her “tot mom” catch-phrase, she expressed contempt for the jury’s decision, telling CNN: ”There is no way that this is a verdict that speaks the truth.”
Death penalty cases are often high-profile, high-pressure affairs (in this case, a precious two-year old girl lost her life). The temptation to jettison basic constitutional values (or media ethics) is great.
It is deeply disturbing, then, that we think we can rationally determine who lives and who dies in the midst of such a frenzy. Jose Baez suggested as much when he asserted that this case was a “perfect example” of why we should not have the death penalty.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Would you be enthusiastic about exchanging hyperlinks? hotels in lonavala with tariff irately Binary options trading refer a friend iridoplegia
WONDERFUL Post.thanks for share..more wait .. singlehop vps rainproof net hosting endenization hostnine review ineluctable
Our capacity for discernment bears no relevance toward any justification for or against a death penalty (or any penalty for that matter). The argument implies that it is relativly acceptable to condemn or indemnify someone based on one's personal apetite for their punishment - e.g. that because prison only squanders years of their life and severs relationships and connections, it is less "disturbing" to condemn an innocent when such is their sentence than when the punishment may be more permanent but no less reversible.
On the contrary, if anything, this is a prime example for the grace of a death penalty; for it forces a more sobering thought process when considering the issue of guilt, which in the American legal system, must be proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt". Assuming it is easier to send a man to jail, rather than death, the implied final argument suggests then that a death penalty actually buffers the core premise of the American legal system.
Ultimately, however, this aspect of the case really only argues for the development of a capacity for independent and duly informed discernment that is not only free from bias, but that also posesses a means for the recognition, evaluation, and analysis of bias in an information source.
Actually I find that the death penalty iwould be repugnant in a case like this. We should have a death penalty but not for this. I don't know what happened, it doesn't matter really, most people who are murdered are murdered by someone they know. Or better said, you have to know somebody pretty well to want them dead. The death penalty should be used in a similar vein.
The death penalty should be reserved for treason and government officials (elected or bureaucrats)who commit capitol crimes only. When the people who are paid to protect us and make laws commit crimes it is inexcusable. With crime perpetrated by the people in government office the strictest and worst punishments should be reserved.
I am not naive enough to expect this any time soon.
by definition requires a measure of fairness, equality of treatment, and justification. Is anything less than death a fair sentence for one who murders? Is there any other treatment that even approximates that of the victim?
Now, there are plenty of arguments to be made as to other offenses that, while not imminently lethal, warrant a lethal sentence, or a sentence that does not actually resemble the offense. However, the basic premise of justice, is that the attempt be made whenever possible.
You say that 'leaders' commission of crimes is inexcusable; are you suggesting that some offenses are excusable (ignoring the possibility of unjust laws for simplicity)?
If Casey was found guilty of the capital crime, Murder in the First degree, the prevailing argument would have been "This is why we need the death penalty."
No, not from AI, but from the rest of society.
I do not think such a debate should hinge upon the level of reasonableness of a State's D.A. Office.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
I think the death penalty was probably a factor in the juror’s decision though. if they hadn’t felt like they were sentencing somebody to death maybe they would have given a guilty verdict…and then yes just like you said people would be up in arms about “why no death penalty”
should be avoided. If you have not personally served as a juror in a death-penalty case, and do not have relevant testimony supporting your claim, and do not have other concrete data supporting your claim, you should probably take care in your assumptions.
(you* is intended generically)