Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty
(Post 1083109)
I was hoping for the death penalty. She really is a piece of trash in human form. She is scum and I wish nothing but the worst for her in the future. The prosecution wasn't good in this case, but it was still ridiculously obvious that she killed her daughter. I think anyone who buys the drowning in a swimming pool story is a moron to be honest.
The defense came up with ridiculous stories and reasons for things that happened but the prosecution missed the boat and couldn't pin any forensics or anything on her. If I was a juror, I'd probably just say fuck it and say she was guilty just because it was pretty obvious.
Of course Facebook blew up over this, and to quote a facebook friend: "Glad to see all of you are crying over a dumb trial. You're all blind to the million other atrocities that happen every single day. If you weren't so ignorant, you'd realize this is just another day in the life of human beings"
Attitudes like this just piss me off... it's like, there's so many murders and crimes committed every day, there is no possible way that anybody could come close to even hearing about half these cases. And I feel like people have this attitude that people who have an opinion on big media cases are idiots or something. Like they aren't valid because they don't care as much about some other random death.
|
I have to take issue with several things you just said.
1. Why would you hope for the death penalty? Why would you ever
hope to see another human being die? If she
was convicted of killing her daughter, which by the way she wasn't, she'd be put in jail for killing another human being. Why would it make sense to kill her? Aren't we punishing her for killing? If she's in jail she's obviously not a threat to other people's lives, so why hypocritically kill her? What's the purpose? Some misplaced sense of revenge and justice? Surely you can see the logical fallacy of pursuing the death penalty on a case like this.
2. "Being pretty obvious" doesn't mean feck to me if there's no forensics. It's my opinion that without solid forensic evidence (and in this particular case there was
no forensic evidence) there absolutely shouldn't be a conviction. Why would you risk somebody's entire life on circumstances? You mention "pinning" forensics on her as if you were just desperate for them to convict her. But a trial is about finding truth, not convicting people.
3. I happen to believe that the defense was probably right in the accident theory. There's absolutely no motive whatsoever (she wanted to party? give me a break, that's a stock motive as old as U.S. law itself) and that coupled with the lack of forensics leads me to believe it was definitely the right thing to
not convict her. The media was thirsty for a conviction and whittled public opinion down with continual assassinations of character. But being an ***hole doesn't make you a murderer.
I think people seem to forget that you're Innocent Until Proven Guilty, not Guilty Until Proven Guilty. And if a court of law can't prove you guilty, you're innocent. Regardless of my, your, and anyone's personal opinion, you are innocent.
As regards people's attitude of "why care when there's so many atrocities?" I ask you, why
do you care? I can understand feeling sympathetic or angry that a child had been murdered, but what is it about a child you've never met, never even heard about while she was alive, that stirs such emotion in people? Why do they care? It seems like people are treating this as a subconscious form of entertainment, or to put it better a mild diversion that they can watch from their homes, feel emotion about and distract them from their own little white kids.
