Image by CHARMERS ❤'S LILY ROSE via FlickrCasey Anthony has been acquitted by the jury of murdering her daughter but was guilty of lying to investigators on several occasions.
I think everyone that followed this case knew the prosecutors had no evidence so WHY TRY HER FOR FIRST DEGREE MURDER?
This is exactly what I have been talking about; prosecutors will try to convict you and even send you to death row while knowing there is no evidence to prove decidedly that you are indeed guilty. The jury saw the lack of evidence right away and acquitted her quickly.
What if the jury members were twits and bought the “hypothetical” explanation offered by prosecutors as to what really happened? Would she be convicted of first degree murder based on a hypothetical explanation and potentially sentenced to death?
It appears that this is true and therefore I say there is a major problem with how we charge people with crimes and how we try them in court.
Prosecutors have to get permission to try someone for a crime and that permission should be given based on evidence of a crime so how did they get permission to try Anthony based on what?
I understand “probable cause” but what then?
No comments:
Post a Comment