J.R.R. Tolkien penned, in my opinion, one of the most beautiful words concerning what I am about to write about. He said,

“Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of judgment. For even the wise cannot see all ends.”

I believe this piece of verse, its sentiment, reflects exactly what happened in regards to the Casey Anthony trial this afternoon.

It is clear than many people, across the country, have somehow developed opinions, ideas, theories and the like as to the who, what, where, when, and why of her actions. Many of these people have done so out of maternal instinct or sadness over the death of a little girl. Many of these people know nothing of the facts of this case, outside of what they have seen on television. Many of these people don’t know what it was like in the courtroom, how the jury perceived the trial (cable news broadcasted a significant amount more than what they actually were privy too), or what it was like to have to live in seclusion away from family for nearly 50 days. In essence, they know nothing. The same can be said of myself.

It should be noted that I had very little interest in this case. I started paying some attention after attending the trial around day 11, but even with that I wasn’t truly focused on it. Not in the same way my grandmother was at least. Believe it or not, our television currently has 20+ hours of HLN coverage recorded. It’s insane. Still, with that said, I have heard, read, and researched enough to maintain certain opinions. These are what follow.

Casey Anthony is a unique individual. Of this there is no doubt. I think it’s safe to say she comes from a dysfunctional family and mentally she has some problems that I think she should seek some form of counseling for. Outside of this, none of us have any clue what her life was truly like growing up, none of us have any clue what her relationship with her daughter was like. Everything we know came from less than certain evidence presented in court and on TV.

The prosecution in this case had a difficult task in front of them. It’s my understanding that in cases like this, the prosecution is the only person who has any real task charged to them. In legal jargon, they bear the burden of proof. That is, they have to prove that what they say happened actually happened. In other words, they charged the girl, they have to prove she did it. This is not always the case, but was here. Alternatively, the defense doesn’t have to do anything but protect the legal rights of their client (as I understand it). They only must argue that the prosecution did not do this. This is because of the Fifth Amendment and the defendants right of innocence until proven otherwise.

When you consider what they had to prove (as outlined by the charges) and what evidence they had, it’s clear that they had no easy task. That said, I personally believe that they did the absolute best that they could have given the circumstances. Granted, I am not lawyer and their own self reflection is all that can truly say what could have been improved, but given the number of individuals that were convinced of her guilt – I say they did their job as good as they could have. Did they succeed? No, but that’s part of the game. They needed to prove to a jury – a jury that has been barred from any influential contact, media, and even some witnesses – that she did it. They did not.

Still, people are pissed that she wasn’t convicted, and everyone is asking why. The answer is simple and has been repeated a billion times: there wasn’t enough proof! In the opinion of the jurors and what they saw, there wasn’t enough proof! This is where I have gotten frustrated with the barrage of comments being made by friends on Facebook, the media, and personal acquaintances. Our legal system required that the jury be convinced beyond and to the exclusion of reasonable doubt. They weren’t – and neither was I.

Reasonable doubt is an interesting thing. People skilled in the law have a significantly difficult time deciding what it actually means, and in many cases don’t even bother defining it. In this case though it’s clear that the jury cultivated their own meaning of reasonable doubt based on what they heard and Judge Perry’s instructions. (Note: It’s interesting that the term reasonable doubt wasn’t intended to protect the accused. It was actually meant to protect the jurors themselves. Read More: Here or Here)

Personally, I believe the jury did the right thing in this case. From what I have read and heard here’s is what there was not in this case:

There was no concrete evidence that Casey killed the girl.
There was no concrete evidence that she killed her with premeditation.
There’s no concrete evidence that Caylee died due to duct tape.
There’s no concrete evidence she died of chloroform.
There’s no evidence that she was even in the same room when she died.
There’s no evidence she drowned.

Do we see a trend? There just isn’t enough, by definition, to convict her of first degree murder. There is nothing but speculation across the board. There are more questions than answers. That, in my opinion, is grounds for acquittal under reasonable doubt. I would have voted the exact same way.

Reasonable doubt is a powerful thing. It is at the root of our system of justice. You need to be able to prove someone guilty. It’s not the like the medieval ages where you were thrown in the Tower of London out of disagreement with a king, dislike, speculation or hearsay. It shows that in the U.S. you don’t go to jail because of people’s rampant emotions and media hype. You need evidence and proof, neither of which existed in this case. The justice system worked like it was supposed to and I am grateful it did. You all should be too, because if – heaven forbid – you ever are charged with a crime, the protection of reasonable doubt applies to you too.

I’ll end with this. People are saying justice was not served. Well justice and the law are very different beasts. As Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr said, “This is a court of law . . . not a court of justice.” Justice is a hard thing to deal out, just as judgment is a perilous thing to pass. It’s difficult to define, dangerous to regulate, and too unpredictable to leave to the hands of such a diverse and at times uneducated world.

Josh