What is Justice?

Maybe I have been watching too much Star Trek Voyager that I am adopting a Vulcan attitude, especially towards the Casey Anthony trial, but many people have become too emotional and more importantly irrational towards the verdict. This happens a lot with other issues that if you do support one thing, then you must support the other thing. For example, you either support health care, or you hate children and old people. In the case of the Casey Anthony trial, you are either outraged at Casey Anthony going free, or if you are opposed, you hate little two-year-old girls and have no feelings that she was murdered.

Many people have claimed that no justice was served. To an extent, they are right. No justice was served for the girl, but justice was served for Casey Anthony. I read in the local paper today of an outraged citizen saying that the jury was at fault for letting Casey Anthony go free. Before I go into the reasons for why this is illogical, I must point out that it is ironic that people try so hard to get out of jury duty, yet get so emotional and are quick to lay judgement on the jury for doing their duty. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and views, but their statements hold little value when they themselves are unwilling to do what is required of them as citizens of their country.

The jury is perhaps one of the most powerful group of people in the country. They can decide the fate of an individual. Thus it is important that a member of the jury take all facts into account before making their decision. The facts must not only be truthful, but must be backed with evidence, and not conjecture. The only people responsible for providing these facts and the evidence to back it up is the prosecution. Therefore if the jury finds the defendant not guilty, it is not the failure of the jury, but the failure of the prosecution. The prosecution failed to provide enough evidence to prove without a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony committed the murder.

It can be difficult for those who have followed the case only by watching cable news channels to know what really happened. Legal pundits can speculate all they want as to what Casey Anthony may have done, but an individual must be rational enough, and not clouded by emotion, to discern when someone in the news is presenting you with facts, or just throwing out theories. It is true that the death of the little girl is a tragedy, but justice for the sake of justice is not justice. That is to say that as long as someone is prosecuted for the crime without enough evidence is not justice. That way of thinking is outdated and is not what our justice system is about. It was not that long ago that if a black man was found near a crime scene, he would be tried and sentenced to life in prison or put to death for a crime he did not commit simply because he was there and someone had to be punished for the crime regardless if there was enough evidence to prove him guilty.

Maybe Casey Anthony did murder her child and will now walk free. Maybe her grandparents were negligent and an accident occurred resulting in the girl's death, so the grandparents made it look like she was murdered and ultimately tried to pin it on Casey Anthony so they would not have to go to prison even for charges associated with neglecting a child that resulted in her death. Ultimately it is the prosecution's fault that there will be no justice for the little girl because they spent so much money trying to prosecute Casey Anthony that they will not venture to try the grandparents. But because the media has hyped up the case for so long and hammered its viewers over the head with the idea that Casey Anthony was guilty before given the chance to be proven innocent, everyone believes that justice was not served by letting Casey Anthony go free. To be fair, Casey Anthony has spent the past three years in jail and will be forever guilty in the public's eye making it almost impossible to make a new life for herself, a life that will be without her daughter and without her parents. If Casey Anthony really was guilty of the crime, she will be punished not by being in jail or sentenced to death but by how miserable her life will become in the public's eyes. But if she really is innocent, she will still be punished, and that is not justice.

Contrary to how people feel about the case, the system worked. People trained to think they are criminals just for trying to fly on an airplane and should be subjected to molestation and rape by the TSA will not realize that all people are innocent until proven without a reasonable doubt to be guilty of a crime. Casey Anthony was innocent until the courts could prove that she was guilty of the crime. The system in place is meant to prevent innocent people from being sent to prison for crimes they did not commit. It is true that guilty people may go free, but it is not the system's fault, but the prosecution's fault for not doing their job. And until the courts can prove that the person was guilty, it is only speculation about who committed the crime. Which is more ethical, letting one guilty person go free so that 1,000 innocent people will not go to jail for crimes they did not commit, or putting 1,000 innocent people in jail just to ensure that one guilty person is incarcerated? The system favors the 1,000 innocent people, and while the media and as a result the public who follow unconditionally prejudges people, the courts do not.