Casey Anthony: Fair isn't fair

I'm reading comments on Facebook in reaction to the Casey Anthony verdict. A lot of you are upset, and reasonably so. "It was obvious she was guilty!" is the chanting cry I hear.

Regardless of your personal beliefs and/or opinions, there was a high burden of proof (in fact the highest) to meet in order for the jury to find Casey Anthony guilty of first-degree murder. That burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Think about that phrase for a minute and what it means.

I can hear you shouting back, "But what about the evidence they had against her?!". Evidence is just evidence. It means nothing unless you can tie it to the alleged wrongdoer. That involves the expert testimony of DNA evidence and other experts in related fields. The expert will be examined for their credentials and will then be questioned on the processes used in obtaining and preserving the evidence. A lot of discrediting can come into play against the prosecution if the evidence hasn't been handled correctly or even if the expert witness doesn't come across as credible.

As much as I, and many of you, would like for many people who "appear" to be guilty to be found guilty, it just doesn't work that way. The prosecution has the deck stacked against them in every case. Because they have what's known as the "burden of proof" to meet. If they can't meet it, then the alleged wrongdoer walks, in a sense.

This is the downside of having a legal system that presumes innocence until guilt is proven. It's not perfect. It does create an opportunity for the defense to simply poke holes in the prosecution's argument. All the defense really has to do is argue the burden of proof hasn't been met, and maybe throw in an alternate theory. Maybe the defense can, as in this case, create doubt in the jury.

That's how the game is played. You and I can't say with 100% conviction that she's guilty, because we weren't there. We didn't listen to the 90+ witnesses, or see every piece of evidence presented. All we can assume and hope is that the jury made a fair decision. And let's not forget fair isn't really fair in the first place, but that's a quasi-legal argument best left alone in this blog entry.