The Casey Anthony trial has had most of us glued to the TV over the last couple of weeks and now the shocking not guilty verdict has left many viewers stunned.
A recent Reuters report discusses how this particular case can be seen as something of a victory for the U.S. justice system. Both the media and public opinion seemed believe that Casey Anthony was 2-year-old Caylee’s murderer, but somehow the jury was still able to churn out a not guilty verdict.
Prosecutors in this case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, which in the end was not enough to convict Anthony of murdering her child. Jurors in this case were not shown conclusive forensic evidence that Casey Anthony was the child’s killer.
Criminal law professor at Ohio State, Doug Berman explains how times have changed and with popular shows out there like “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation” juries may now be relying too heavily on forensics. Berman says, “There's been a lot of speculation that lay jurors have now gotten even less likely to convict, because they're under the false impression that every case is going to have some sort of forensic smoking gun.”
Berman, explains why this trial can also be viewed as an example of the justice system working. Berman says, “In some sense, it's a sign that the system worked well," Berman said. "The job of the system is not to turn this into a Hollywood ending, but to have all the actors in the system do the job to the best of their ability.”
Take the latest SheSpeaks Poll and tell us what you think of this case!
What were your feelings after hearing the not guilty verdict?
Do you agree that this is a good example of the justice system and “reasonable doubt” actually working?