Casey Anthony: Justice served?

I'd like to start out with a request: If you disagree with me on anything I say here, please feel free to speak your mind but be intelligent and respectful about it. The internet seems to have made people lose their ability to disagree while still respecting each other.

Those of you who don't live in a hole (which, seeing as you're reading this on the internet, I'm guessing is all of you) have no doubt heard by now the verdict of the Casey Anthony trial. Based on the reaction I've seen on Facebook and Twitter, people are livid about the verdict and seem to think that justice has not been served.

I'd argue, however, that justice was served. Now before you all lynch me, a common misconception needs to be cleared up. Many people assume that "not guilty" and "innocent" are the same thing when, in fact, they are not. A ruling of not guilty does NOT imply that the jury thinks the defendant is innocent. What it does mean is that the prosecution did not prove their case that the crime in question was committed. In lay terms, these two may mean the same thing but in legal terms, they're not. I liken this to the scientific concept of a theory and the lay conception of a theory. The two are COMPLETELY different and the lay conception of a theory is actually closer to the scientific term "hypothesis."

In this case, the prosecution really only had circumstantial evidence and they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey murdered her daughter. In other words, there are possible other explanations that are not completely out of nowhere ("The devil made her do it!!!!") that cannot be dismissed based on the evidence presented. The burden of proof rested on the prosecution and they failed to prove their case.

Some have accused this as being a flaw in the legal system and, again, I'd argue the opposite as it protects the innocent from being accused of a crime they did not commit and being incarcerated for it (***Special note: I am NOT implying that Casey Anthony is innocent***). This is where the concept of "innocent until guilty" comes into our legal system. If we had the opposite, guilty until proven innocent, people could be accused of any crime that they did not necessarily commit and be thrown into jail.

Believe it or not, we actually had this system at one point in our country. Think back to Salem, MA when people were being accused of being witches and then burned unless they could prove their innocence (which, in most cases, they could not). This is an example of the "guilty until proven innocent" system and it was essentially chaos.

To continue the science metaphor I brought up earlier, in science, you can't just make a claim and expect people to find evidence to disprove it. The opposite is true: You have to find evidence showing that your hypothesis is likely beyond a reasonable doubt and the same holds true in our legal system.

So did Casey Anthony get away with murder? Maybe. But we can't say beyond a reasonable doubt that she's guilty. As upsetting as it may be, the system worked. The prosecution needed to step up their game to prove their case and they didn't. But the way the system is designed, the most functional system we've been able to develop as a species so far, worked.

Am I saying that this is not a tragic situation? No. Regardless of how she died or if she was murdered, it is a tragedy that Caylee's life was cut short and this is a wake up call to all of us to take better care of our children and be wary of suspicious behavior that could put others in danger.