At least that's what they've said on the murder, abuse, and neglect charges. Fair enough. A jury of peers could not be swayed by the prosecution of the state, therefore they were correct in their decision.
Many people are outraged by this. Why? The thing I've heard and read most on Facebook is that the system failed. No, the system did exactly what it was supposed to do. The failure here was the prosecutors. Within the scope of any criminal trial wherein the state or federal government is charging a person, a group, or conglomeration with a crime, the burden of proof rests solely with the prosecution team. The defense is there to poke holes in the case to the best of their ability in order to disprove the theories being presented.
In order for the system to fail, laws would have to be disregarded entirely -- no trial by jury just hang the fuckers, throw out all the rules and laws they waste our time. I love criminal cases like this, especially when the verdict is not guilty. The public outcry is just hilarious to me; just reaffirms the notion that people don't understand how judicial proceedings work. Trial by jury is easy enough to understand, you box up 12 people too stupid to make up an excuse or act like a racial bigot and you have them try to comprehend the complex notions of motive, means, and opportunity. The part that gets most people, in particular the loudmouth morons who have an opinion on everything regardless of how stupid they sound, is the part where the defendant is innocent until proven guilty...did we all catch the operative word there? PROVEN.
Proven -- transitive verb; to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic)
It's right there. Perceived criminals are innocent until it is proved otherwise through means of evidentiary support. I fail to understand how people can screw that up and formulate these scathing opinions that someone is guilty when they have nothing to do with the situation in the first place. In the Anthony trial, was the death of the child particularly disgusting, no. It was sad and disheartening, but it is not as if the child was hacked and mangled and slowly strewn about town over the course of several days after having been sexually assaulted and raped in public. No child deserves to die, but for outside entities to formulate opinions of the accused based upon heresy, circumstance and outward appearance is appalling. Especially when the judicial system gives everyone the right to be considered innocent unless and until the prosecuting body can prove otherwise.
Okay, I'm done. But I will leave you with some my particular favorite comments of friends that I've run across on Facebook.
CG: "Free Boosie...maybe if we did, he would put out a hit on Casey Anthony"
AR: "Dear USA government, you suck big balls. The end. Not guilty my ass" (I find this one particularly funny because the girl who wrote it clearly has no concept of the court system, and she's generally dumb as a pile of rocks)
KS: "She's so damn guilty, I don't believe this. I thought public opinion counted for things like this!" (Just....wow)