That's no way for a father to talk to his son!
You'll give the kid a complex or something.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Getting away with murder.
- Thread starter Father Heathen
- Start date
You'll give the kid a complex or something.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I've got plenty of money for therapy.:yes:
McBell
Unbound
So far this thread has been exceedingly heavy on emotionally driven opinions and extremely short on the facts of the case.
gnomon
Well-Known Member
This case was really not all that newsworthy. It was salacious and perfect for creating TV drama in an unfolding true crime case but it was not newsworthy.
man
I despise Nancy Grace.
edit: Let me rephrase to say not newsworthy to the massive coverage it received.
man
I despise Nancy Grace.
edit: Let me rephrase to say not newsworthy to the massive coverage it received.
Last edited:
Agreed.
There's another thread topic in here that I've been contemplating for a couple days and hope I write it up soon.
In meantime, it is bizarre to me that we (Americans) live in a land where jury of peers is how we do trials and 'innocent until proven guilty' is the core of our law; while reality is still perpetuated by those who say - bump all that, we need to do 'justice' the old fashioned way. C'mon everybody, get your pitchforks out. We's gonna have ourselves a good ol' fashioned hangin. Hee haw!
It's like evidence schmevidence, I just wanna see someone pay for the horror I see in this situation.
Hence the reason some (actually vast majority of) Americans think 'justice' was done when Bin Laden was killed. Yeah, that'll teach 'em.
I was so disappointed with the verdict, I left the room in the middle of it. That woman got away with murdering her baby.
EDIT: I don't hate the woman, the attorneys, or the jurors. Anger is not hatred.
EDIT: I don't hate the woman, the attorneys, or the jurors. Anger is not hatred.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Maybe, but if she did, isn't that the prosecution's fault?
Warren Clark
Informer
Who is to say that she physically murdered her baby. The defense was that she drowned and the evidence supported that.
At the most it is gross neglegence -> Manslaughter
That's true, too. But either way, she got away with it. I am not so angry as disappointed. But I blame our justice system for that. It may not be right for me to feel that way, but I can't help how I feel.
If it is "gross negligence" - I don't even see how she got away with that. She wasn't found completely innocent, and has had to sit in jail for 2.5 years. Not to mention, living at least next 5 years of her life (possibly much longer) with idea that most despise her. Getting away with 'it' is - we never hear of a Casey Anthony because no one around her (includes you and me) thinks she has done anything seriously wrong.
The immediate karma around her excessive lying seems to be far from 'getting away with it.'
The immediate karma around her excessive lying seems to be far from 'getting away with it.'
Warren Clark
Informer
I mean it wasn't the judges fault. The judge doesn't pick what to charges someone will be held to, that is the Prosecutor's (lawyer's) job.
1st Degree Murder is a long shot and they took it. :sad:
Warren Clark
Informer
She got away with it because she wasn't charged for it (the lawyer's fault). She was charged for lying to the investigators and we will find out if she will get the maximum sentence of 4 yrs.
If so then she only has one more year to serve in jail.
You cannot charge someone for gross neglegence and 1st degree murder.
Its the same as charging someone for 1st and 2nd degree murder. It cannot be done.
The last person I want to blame is the judge. The judge did a good job and stayed neutral, like he is supposed to. I just blame the entire system- and right or wrong, I can't help how I feel.
Warren Clark
Informer
One stupid lawyer doesn't make the entire judicial system bad.
This case alone isn't what caused me to distrust the judicial system. There have been a lot of cases- and they do add up, where justice was not served (or so it appeared). Lately, I have thought that whoever can afford the most expensive lawyer has the best chance of winning or beating the system. Sometimes justice is served but people who have more money can hire better lawyers, just ask Lindsay Lohan and O. J. Simpson (not for his latest case but the murder trial).
Warren Clark
Informer
This case alone isn't what caused me to distrust the judicial system. There have been a lot of cases- and they do add up, where justice was not served (or so it appeared). Lately, I have thought that whoever can afford the most expensive lawyer has the best chance of winning or beating the system. Sometimes justice is served but people who have more money can hire better lawyers, just ask Lindsay Lohan and O. J. Simpson (not for his latest case but the murder trial).
I would agree that celebrities and their money get in the way of their punishment, but it's fully the judicial system to blame.
As for OJ, the prosecutor shot too far.
You cannot expect to pin 1st degree on someone unless you can prove BEYOND a reasonable doubt that that person maliciously killed the victim.
In OJ's case the evidence just wasn't there.
You often need a witness at the scene of the crime or in proximity to prove 1st degree.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
So people are supposed to be indifferent apathetic when someone murders their own child and gets away with it? Really? And on what do you base the claim that killing her would be "wrong"?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
What's your theory based on the evidence that is available? And surely you might understand why some folks might not be too happy with the fact that a child was murdered and now will never have justice.
Last edited:
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I'm curious as to why the jury didn't think the evidence was solid enough. Was it the child herself who researched chloroform on the internet, crawled into a trash bag and used it on herself, and during her last moment of consciousness placed the tape over her own mouth while lying in the trunk of the car, only for the corpse to later pop out and land in a wooded area on its own? Who does the jury think is responsible for that if not mommy? I'm also curious how the jury would also explain why exactly Casey, if innocent, wouldn't report the disappearance of her own child until a whole month after she went missing, and spent her time partying during that period, and also why she would lie to investigators if she were innocent? What puzzle pieces were missing that caused doubt in their the eyes of the jury?