Casey Anthony.

[Donald Trump]

I know, then they milked it and got loads of money for that daft book that was released.
It's because she went missing on holiday, if she'd gone missing in England or she'd been Portuguese and gone missing in Portugal the most they'd have got was a few policemen trying to track her and a couple of local announcements that she was missing.

I think it was more because she was middle class and white, most of the people who work for newspapers and tv etc are middle class and white.
More importantly she was a child. The media has a massive hard on for paedophilia. It's like the brass eye episode about it, a paedophile disguised as a school etc etc. It's not a particularly pleasant aspect of human nature, but people are obsessed by bad things happening to children.

I haven't followed this at all as I don't really care and I think all Americans are nasty murderers anyway, but I don't see why people feel the need to attack 'society'. From what little I've read it does seem like she killed her child, that's not to say that I think she should have been found guilty.
She hasn't been found innocent, she's been found not guilty, there's a massive difference between the two. If she did murder her child then she probably does deserve to be hung or get fried or get shot in the face by Navy Seals and then have her body dumped somewhere in the ocean.

 

[Tmoo]

Honestly, the inhuman sadists who are saying she deserves to be a pariah and arguing for someone to "hunt her down and deal justice" are no fucking better than whoever killed the little girl (If it was murder).

In an ideal world, Casey Anthony would be left alone and allowed to rebuild her life; sadly, the bloodlustful won't allow that.

I'm an inhuman sadist, huh? Yeah, well, I didn't let a little girl die while I was out partying and failed to report her missing for a month.

 

[Toshiya]

I'm an inhuman sadist, huh? Yeah, well, I didn't let a little girl die while I was out partying and failed to report her missing for a month.

And she was found not guilty. So how you can say that she did with 100% certainty is, as I said before, quite ridiculous.
I've already said it, you don't know the details or the circumstances.

And yeah Hal, that too. But again I find it silly that she gets so much coverage because a child was involved. I hear it again and again - how could so-and-so kill a child etc. It's just a bad to kill an adult as it is to kill a child, so it shouldn't be more well publicised.

 

[Tmoo]

Found not guilty of murdering her child. Her negligent behavior was not put on trial, and that's where I'm pinning her. You can't justify her not reporting her child missing for a month. And yes, I can pin her to that with 100% certainty, because it was one of the pieces of evidence presented in court.

EDIT: took out the second half as it was redundant and I started to ramble...

 

[Shu]

Found not guilty of murdering her child. Her negligent behavior was not put on trial, and that's where I'm pinning her. You can't justify her not reporting her child missing for a month. And yes, I can pin her to that with 100% certainty, because it was one of the pieces of evidence presented in court.

Yep, that's where most of my friends are saying that should have been enough. The problem with me is, I haven't exactly followed up, due to they made it almost as big as the Natalie Holloway thing in Aruba.

I say, I'm pretty sure she was guilty or at least an accomplice. Though our court systems sort of let folks slide these days, due to expenses it seems. I didn't follow it enough, so I'm not going to put out an ignorant opinion.

Oh well, again.. poor kiddo. No justice for you.

 

[Marquis of Granby]

She hasn't been found innocent, she's been found not guilty, there's a massive difference between the two.

spot on son. i dont think anyone would deny that there's something dodgy about not reporting your missing child but a)as far as i know that's not illegal and b)that's not what the woman was being tried for (obv).

If she did murder her child then she probably does deserve to be hung or get fried or get shot in the face by Navy Seals and then have her body dumped somewhere in the ocean.

the true american way!

 

[Mr. Gorilla]

Yeah, well, I didn't let a little girl die while I was out partying and failed to report her missing for a month.

No, but you are alright with torture and you do give in to blind, stupid emotion, if you're one of the people I described.

So yeah, you're still an inhuman sadist.

 

[Ilyena]

There's no need for name calling, guys.

 

[Sir Fratley]

Well, she's already getting slam dunked even with the Not Guilty verdict. She's being sued by the one she claimed kidnapped her daughter for false accusation and derogation of character, they got her on lying to the authorities (though she'll be released on good behavior, ie sexual favors to the guards), and in the end, there's one judge you cannot fool or get past without being punished for your crimes: Osiris (or whatever religious figure in charge of final judgment you worship). If it doesn't come back at her in this life, it'll hit her hard in the next. And given her personality and lack of intelligence, I can see her easily going down the OJ Simpson road. She'll mess up again, and next time she won't be getting off the hook.

 

[ANGRYWOLF]

The thread does seem to drift off course at times

I object to someone saying all Americans are killers.
I live in America, the USA and this thread shouldn't be the spot to take shots at all Americans in a general sense.
If anyone wants to challenge the American judicial system that's fair game but calling all Americans killers is simply juvenile.

I do think there's some reasonable comparison between Karla Holmolka and Casey.
Casey obviously to me is a completely unfeeling individual.She has no regard for anyone but herself.She certainly has no remorse, no guilt or regret and no sense of loss over losing her own daughter.
She only cares about herself and what she enjoys.True that Karla seems to be a sadist while Casey is more of a psychopath but it's obvious to me they're both dangerous in that they wouldn't hesitate to get rid of someone if that person got in their way. If that person prevented them from achieving a goal they really wanted.

shrugs.

In 6 days Casey gets out of jail.It will be interesting to see what happens to her after that.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

Justice has been served. There was not enough evidence to convict her, so she is Not Guilty, simple as that. The Defense are not a bunch of bastards for defending her, as everyone is entitled to a legal defense. This is a success of the justice system. A failing would be her being thrown into prison anyway when there wasn't enough evidence for a conviction.

To those who advocate violence against her or say that justice has failed - you are the real reason justice doesn't prevail in America. What use is the law when you aren't going to respect it when it actually does what it's set up to do? If you really believe in vigilante justice, then go out and do it yourself. Otherwise it's no better than the anarchists I see eating at McDonalds.

 

[Tmoo]

No, but you are alright with torture and you do give in to blind, stupid emotion, if you're one of the people I described.

So yeah, you're still an inhuman sadist.

That's quite fine with me. With or without my input, she's already being nailed. I wouldn't call myself inhuman, schadenfreude is a very human trait - one that all of us indulge in at one point or another, whether we want to admit it or not. I certainly don't want to see convicts of lesser crimes suffer the same fate, so there's my bias for you to chew on; and I don't wish death upon her. I do however, derive entertainment from seeing her flap about in the public spotlight, and while I'm likely the first to admit it, I'm positive everyone here*** (including you, sneaky Gorilla man) has been entertained in some form as well, whether it be shock, sadness, disgust, happiness(?), moral indignation (perhaps from this discussion), or otherwise. Again, I haven't let anyone die under my care, which I say puts me (a person who is 'alright with torture') in a lesser class of evil than someone who went partying with full knowledge her daughter was missing, and didn't report her missing for a full month.

also, I like puppies, kittens, and baby pigs, and under normal circumstances I don't want to see anyone in pain other than maybe the head of Zynga for the abominations that are the -villes. And I like apes, am I accepted now?





***except Shu, who is mostly indifferent.

 

[asm]

Schadenfreude doesn't really have anything to do with having perverse and downright sadist fantasies. Whatever though, it's not me who's spending life thinking about torture, it's your day you're ruining with that stuff, not mine.



I find it interesting though, that many people even in this thread are talking about the rule of law with terms like reasonable doubt and how "justice has been served". That's real faulty reasoning for many reasons. For one, it almost assumes a court of law is infallible, and of course it's not. Secondly, there are many cases where even less circumstantial evidence has lead to a conviction. Infact, there are murder trials where there has been enough circumstantial and other evidence, where people have been convicted of murder even though there is NO BODY TO BE FOUND.

If anything, this case is filed under the file: Reasons I wouldn't want to be judged by a jury of my alledged 'peers'.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

it's your day you're ruining with that stuff, not mine.

If they were a sadist, wouldn't they enjoy that? So, if anything, it would brighten their day!

That's real faulty reasoning for many reasons. For one, it almost assumes a court of law is infallible, and of course it's not.

That's not what I was assuming at all. Any legal system is going to be just as flawed as people are; especially if it's a jury-system. But the law functioned the way it was written to - that's all I'm concerned about. I suppose a proper analogy would be that I'm not concerned with the truth value of it, I just want to make sure the logical form is correct.

I just said "Justice has been served" to be dramatic. The point of the criminal justice system should be rehabilitation, not punishment (which is something we're never going to get in this culture).

Secondly, there are many cases where even less circumstantial evidence has lead to a conviction. Infact, there are murder trials where there has been enough circumstantial and other evidence, where people have been convicted of murder even though there is NO BODY TO BE FOUND.

And any of those cases, whether the person actually murdered them or not, would be a failing of the justice system in my eyes. Better to let ten guilty men go free than put one innocent man in jail.
Though the real problem is that they definitely wouldn't have been operating with the idea of "reasonable doubt".

 

[asm]

If they were a sadist, wouldn't they enjoy that? So, if anything, it would brighten their day!

Heh, well perhaps if they actually had the courage to go forth and maim people as they describe. Now it's just sitting at home thinking about hurting other people.

That's not what I was assuming at all. Any legal system is going to be just as flawed as people are; especially if it's a jury-system. But the law functioned the way it was written to - that's all I'm concerned about. I suppose a proper analogy would be that I'm not concerned with the truth value of it, I just want to make sure the logical form is correct.

I just said "Justice has been served" to be dramatic. The point of the criminal justice system should be rehabilitation, not punishment (which is something we're never going to get in this culture).

Well, true. I didn't mean it to say entirely that everyone has absolute faith in the system of law. But the outcome could have been guilty while still going with the rule of law, so I don't really see the point in talking about logic in that context?

And any of those cases, whether the person actually murdered them or not, would be a failing of the justice system in my eyes. Better to let ten guilty men go free than put one innocent man in jail.
Though the real problem is that they definitely wouldn't have been operating with the idea of "reasonable doubt".

I guess that's what one finds reasonable. I don't find it very reasonable to assume a pathological liar told the truth...whatever though, I mean most people commenting work on the "information" being fed to them. Hard to say what is reasonable and what is not when you don't know all the things.

 

[Tmoo]

Heh, well perhaps if they actually had the courage to go forth and maim people as they describe.

Well, that would be both illegal and immoral, now wouldn't it? Torturing another person isn't exactly courageous either. I simply take enjoyment from seeing this irresponsible, negligent (how many times have people ignored this part?) woman squirm in the public spotlight. That's a bit different from 'thinking about hurting other people', mate.

Now it's just sitting at home thinking about hurting other people.

By all means, since I've been painted as a heartless sadist scum, I -must- sit at home thinking about maiming people

 

[Ayumi Hamasaki]

I'm sort of glad I missed this debate with my own life.

Skimming the thread, I have to say that it's a bit ridiculous to insult the media for paying attention to the case and then make a bunch of posts ABOUT that case yourself. Aren't you doing just what you accuse them of?

I think that Gandalf said it best in The Lord of the Rings:

Many that live deserve death, and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo?
Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise can not see all ends.

 

[Tucker]

Ignoring whether or not she's guilty, can't she go to jail for child neglect?

 

[asm]

Well, that would be both illegal and immoral, now wouldn't it? Torturing another person isn't exactly courageous either. I simply take enjoyment from seeing this irresponsible, negligent (how many times have people ignored this part?) woman squirm in the public spotlight. That's a bit different from 'thinking about hurting other people', mate.

Certainly it'd be illegal. I don't know about immoral. I guess I'd describe it as pretty immoral, but then again I'm not the one wishing horrifying death towards people?

By all means, since I've been painted as a heartless sadist scum, I -must- sit at home thinking about maiming people

If you're going to write descriptions about it and someone just repeats what you've said, perhaps you shouldn't get offended?

 

[Tmoo]

Certainly it'd be illegal. I don't know about immoral. I guess I'd describe it as pretty immoral, but then again I'm not the one wishing horrifying death towards people?


If you're going to write descriptions about it and someone just repeats what you've said, perhaps you shouldn't get offended?

Whoa there buddy, hold up. I haven't said anywhere in this thread that I wish death on the woman. Nor have I ever said that she deserves to be maimed. You are, to put it bluntly, shoving words into my mouth. No sir, I don't like it.

What I DID say is that death really is too easy of a way out for her, and that she's going to be punished by the public regardless of what the courts say.

I could go on and be scathing and sarcastic, but at this point the entire thread is a mockery of common sense and I feel that you're deliberately looking for openings to attack me, so there's really no point in continuing. I've said what I wanted to say, and have yet to see any responses to it save for 'you're an evil person and I'm better than you', so, toodles, I'm out, along with everyone else who's left this thread.