The Verdict

There it was on the front page of the USA Today newspaper for July 8, 2011: “Poll: Two-thirds say Anthony is Guilty”. The story was written to drive home the point that, despite the verdict of the 12 men and women of the Orange County Florida jury that found Casey Anthony innocent of murdering her 2-year old daughter Caylee, the majority of Americans who were polled by the newspaper believed that Casey Anthony really was guilty. There were even individuals who were so incensed by the verdict that they immediately began to call for the felony criminalization of parental “…failure to notify police of a child’s disappearance, within 24-hours”. Such efforts not only totally miss the real import of the verdict and create a vigilante justice atmosphere but potentially create yet another avenue for the surrender of personal rights to those of the state. The real travesty here was that the jury seemed swept up in the enormity of their decision due to the media emphasis upon the case and opted to ignore the carefully crafted presentation of the circumstantial evidence to the contrary of their decision. This is not the first time the verdict in a high profile case has gone astray of where the evidence was pointing. It seems to me that we’ve been here before, in 1994, with victims by the names of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Simpson. In that case, the accused, O.J. Simpson, was found innocent in the criminal trial. Not satisfied with the verdict, the family of Ronald Goldman sued O.J. Simpson for libel in the violation of their son’s personal rights (“wrongful death”). O.J. Simpson was found guilty of the charges and, to the very day, is still held in prison. I am sure that, if there are those who, in their interest of addressing the wrongful death of little Caylee, wish to see justice served, their efforts should be directed towards a civil suit rather than the creation of another law to further restrict personal liberties. What we need to do is use the good civil protections already afforded to us to seek redress where we believe that justice for the individual has not been served. We also need juries who, although inconvenienced by time and media attention, are more deliberative in their search for protection of the rights of individuals who have had their rights abridged or taken away.