What bothers you more?


I don’t know if anyone is watching the ESPYs but they just ran a story about a man who spent over 30 years in jail for a crime he didn’t commit. He was exonerated in 2009 after it was ruled he was unfairly convicted. Details of the story can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/nyregion/29towns.html

In the wake of the Casey Anthony trial I was just wondering if more people are upset when a guilty person walks or an innocent person is convicted?
Personally, it bothers me a lot more when an innocent person is convicted and spends substantial time in jail.


and if by walks you mean right back into jail then yes, a guilty person did walk.

but seriously, i would assume that most people would feel the same way as you and be more bothered my an innocent person spending time in jail.


The whole Casey Anthony thing really bugged me though… if the Death Sentence was not brought up I feel like she would have been guilty. The jury just did not want to convict this young girl to death and they knew it was all on them. Whereas I felt that if it was an older man in his mid 40s, they would have had no doubt and convicted him. The whole thing is just absurd


Well, there’s an argument against the death penalty.

Anyway, our justice system is structured around the assumption that it is far better for a guilty man to escape justice than an innocent man to be convicted.


Anomalies happen and the justice system is not meant for ideology but rather for systematically and pragmatically purging society of crime. The whole thing is heightened because of the ridiculous media scrutiny this case received. There are assuredly many more cases like this per year, in which other people walk as well. That doesn’t justify what was done, but perhaps it puts it in a more realistic perspective for you.


This. There’s a reason why this dilemma is the main focus of every courtroom drama movie ever made.


a guilty person to walk free for two reasons:

  1. The guilty can now prey on other victims.

  2. An innocent wrongly convicted can appeal and still be exonerated and when cleared, can sue for wrongful conviction. It is not good, but at least they can be somewhat made whole.


People act she was found guilty of nothing. She was convicted of 4 counts of lying to investigators and has served 3+ years in jail. The evidence to convict her of first degree was not there. You would think that with all the lawyers that are being churned out now the prosecution would have had someone that could have understood that. They went for it all and let emotion play too much of a factor in building their case.

It annoys me when people get outraged over the fact that she didn’t get the death penalty. Did she kill her kid? Probably but there wasn’t enough evidence. People upset over the verdict should be blaming the prosecution lawyers not Casey Anthony or the jury.


I was not upset over the fact that she did not get the death penalty… I was bothered more by the fact that she probaly killed her own child and basically got away with it


Eh, it seems like you kind of are to an extent. You’re blaming the jury claiming that they didn’t give her the death penalty because she’s a relatively young girl. The jury kept their emotions out of it and concluded what any logical person would. There was not enough evidence to give her the death penalty. If you’re going to blame anyone blame the incompetent, probably ego inflated, prosecution lawyers for even trying to give her the death penalty.


She would have almost certainly won on appeal anyway. The prosecution did not present a winning case.


There are really only like a couple of posts in this thread that bother me less than either of those outcomes…

x_x x_x :cool: :cool: