On July 5, 2011, Casey Anthony was found not guilty of murdering her daughter, Caylee (above). Photo courtesy of the Orange County Sheriff’s Office.
As an aspiring law school student, I, along with millions of other people, found myself absorbed with the Casey Anthony trial. After nearly a month of — I hate to admit it — obsession, the verdict came out, and the expected media buzz started. It is clear that many people were angered by Anthony’s “not guilty” verdict, and as with any other mainstream media hot topic, I expected a significant amount of discussion to surround the decision. What was unexpected, however, was the seemingly overwhelming consensus from the public that because Casey Anthony was acquitted of murder and nobody is to serve time for the death of Caylee Anthony (not yet, at least), the United States’ entire justice system is flawed.
But is it?
At first I was upset with the verdict, too. I mean, think about it. Who doesn’t want to see a guilty verdict at the end of a trial and a story they have been obsessing over and sympathizing with for months? It makes for a much happier, juicier ending if someone is to blame, and subsequently serves time, for the murder of a child. But as I thought more about it, and after discussing the case with a defense lawyer, I began to realize that perhaps the verdict I didn’t originally want to hear was the right one.
I am not saying that I have examined all of the evidence and heard all of the testimony and have decided for myself that Casey Anthony is innocent. But that is just it. Nobody except the judge, the lawyers, the jurors and perhaps a few others has examined the facts. The media may have shown parts of the trial, but certainly not all of it. Somewhere down the line there was not enough evidence to convict Casey Anthony of murder. Perhaps the sentence the prosecution was seeking was too severe. Maybe Casey Anthony is guilty, but the burden of proof was on the prosecution; and for the sentence sought, that burden was very, very high. Perhaps with the evidence at hand, a lower charge could have been more successful. But whatever the case, the jury found her innocent of the first-degree murder charge. No matter what the truth is, if there isn’t enough evidence, should someone ever be convicted? Wouldn’t that set a precedent for future faulty convictions just so “justice could be served”?
Instead of this trial showing a “flaw” in our country’s legal system, doesn’t it show the beauty of it? The most important notion in our country, an idea upon which our entire justice system is based, is that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. After all, as Benjamin Franklin said, isn’t it better that 100 guilty men go free before one innocent man is wrongly convicted?
Anna Schroeder, a junior at Rice University, is an intern in the editorial department at the Baker Institute. She is majoring in mathematical economic analysis and Spanish.