Much has been discussed about Casey Anthony over the past many months regarding the question of her guilt involving the death of her two-year-old daughter Caylee. Everyone seems to have an opinion on the case and her possible guilt. However, she has now been found not guilty by a jury in court proceedings in July that anyone could view. Highly technological mass media is to credit or blame for this fact. She is a household name now because of this modern technology. But what’s more to this fact is that she has been deemed the most hated person in
As stated above, Anthony has now been acquitted of the crime. Yet the debate over her guilt continues. The question now is where does the public go from here? Why is Anthony more hated than O.J. Simpson? Certainly, if she had been found guilty, she would have been sent to prison or got the death penalty for her crime. But that is not the case. She has had death threats. She has said she will change her name and move to an undisclosed location. The question is, why is she still so hated?
We know she contradicted herself during the investigation of her daughter’s death. But what has also been said is that such contradiction does not necessarily make her a murderer. She did not report the disappearance of her child Caylee for quite some time. It has been shown that she might indeed be a negligent mother. But again, as others have also said, those facts in and of themselves do not make her guilty. Think of it this way, imagine you are accused of a robbery that occurred between 8 and 10 pm last night and you state as your alibi that you were at a particular movie. It is discovered that in fact you were not at the movie, you had lied and your alibi was false. THAT LIE does not constitute evidence that you were at the scene of the crime when it was committed.
Did she not appear sincere enough or was she not heartbroken enough in front of the camera over the death of her only child? Many indeed would be. Again, emotional responses were not on trial and people do grieve differently. Moreover, how WE interpret her emotional response not only do not constitute evidence but our feelings on the matter or irrelevant to her innocence or guilt.
The evidence itself in this case was circumstantial and the jury did not have definitive proof that Anthony was guilty. Yet, circumstantial evidence can represent in many ways the guilt of a defendant. But there is not any evidence out there that proves Anthony’s guilt without a doubt. There were no witnesses. Conclusive forensic evidence was not found. And the vast majority of the public are not experts on the knowledge of psychology, sociopathy or criminal behavior or forensic science necessary to know that Anthony did indeed kill her daughter. The psychological sciences especially are not suited to this decision. At best, they can rule whether Anthony‘s state of mind MAY or MAY NOT have been disposed to that crime. It is very difficult to rule absolutely that an individual, based upon their psychology could NOT commit the crime and even if their psychology claims they COULD, it does not mean that they DID. Psychology is best applied when it conclusively rules OUT a person as a suspect.
Emotions have run high over the killing of an innocent child without the proof necessary to condemn Anthony. The public in general appears to want justice for this horrific crime. They want to blame someone and in so doing feel empowered. But we need to be fair and right about such opinions. Moreover, if we desire empowerment over such matters, is our energy not better directed at preventing such occurrences? Rather than spending hours watching a trial and gnashing our teeth, isn’t that time better spent in volunteering at various children ‘s and school programs.
Is it then because she is a woman and the trial involved the death of her only child? Is it possible that in the view of the public, this is indeed the worse kind of crime? Do we judge someone for these crimes now on our own, as though we all were on that very jury of her peers who acquitted Casey Anthony?
This is the era of ‘reality’ TV and serious issues have become entertainment. Casey Anthony was definitely a part of that type of entertainment in the sense that television cameras were a large part of her trial and she was in our living rooms regularly for some time. Because of this access, we as the viewing public enter the lives of people we otherwise would have no knowledge of or close contact with. Mass communication has us right there in the moment. We make judgment calls we otherwise wouldn’t be able to make. This is a point of debate in and of itself over the value of this type of communication. Is it good or bad? Again, that is a personal opinion each of us can make. In the case of Casey Anthony, the public judges her in a way that would have been impossible in the early twentieth century. Back then, such rumor would have condemned our neighbours perhaps, but not someone thousands of miles away. It might not have even made it into the local newspapers. Today, as perhaps yesterday, we may indeed feel empowered by attacking others.
So what does this mean involving the hatred of Anthony? Yes, we are mass judge and jury and we who watched her trial all have opinions involving this case. But just like we would have had vehement opinions over our neighbour involved in such a crime a century ago, perhaps it is the fact that a small child was murdered and her killer has not been brought to justice that we still focus this kind of hatred on Anthony. What happens when a society begins to hate and hate indiscriminately? Out of such intense hatred, cannot real atrocities result and whole nations be subject to horrendous acts? Witness the civil strife, the genocides, the terrorism, and the world conflicts that have torn lives apart around the globe,
