I don’t know whether or not Casey Anthony killed her young daughter or, if so, how she did it or her intent or state of mind in doing it. Unless you’re Casey Anthony or one of a few possible accomplices, you don’t know those things either.
What we do know is that after a month-and-a-half long trial and more than 10 hours of deliberation, a Florida jury of 12 men and women unanimously found reasonable doubt as to Anthony’s guilt of the specific charge: That she intentionally, and with premeditation, murdered Caylee Anthony.
The punditry’s response to the verdict has been lightning fast, but far from unanimous — some believe that Casey Anthony got away with murder, others feel that “justice was done” because the jury rightly rejected the prosecution’s incredibly weak case. I dissent from both conclusions.
I do agree that the prosecution gave the jury no grounds on which to convict — “Casey Anthony is a bad person and her daughter is dead” do not first degree murder prove — but justice remains absent from the scene.
Anthony has already spent nearly three years in prison. So much for a “speedy public trial.” She stands convicted on four counts of “providing false information to a law enforcement officer.” Those counts provide for up to four years in prison as punishment, and were probably thrown in specifically to protect the prosecution against liability for having held her for so long prior to trial, knowing that it had no substantial case on the murder charge. She gets “time served,” the prosecutors get immunity for abducting her and stealing three years of her life.
Why was she held for so long? Probably so that the prosecutors could attempt to bully her into a “plea bargain.” The dirty little secret of America’s “justice” system is that more than 90% of charges are “settled” this way. The defendant pleads guilty to a lesser charge and/or receives a lighter punishment (and avoids the risks of going to trial), the prosecutor notches up another law’n’order resume bullet point (and avoids the risks of going to trial), and the judge works in an extra round of golf instead of putting on that hot black robe and pretending to pay attention.
If you believe that more than 90% of those accused of crimes are guilty of said crimes, this probably sounds like a pretty good way of doing things to you. And you’re probably holding a crack pipe in your hands at this very moment.
The state is the last institution to which any sane person would entrust the duty of meting out justice. The financial and political incentives of government all militate against objectivity and toward bringing as many victims as possible into “the system” and keeping them there for as long as possible. “Tough on crime” is a springboard to political power; “soft on crime” is a steel-jawed trap for aspiring politicians.
Guilt versus innocence? What weight do they carry when placed opposite the prison construction lobby and the police and “corrections” unions, who stand ready to weigh in with money and endorsements for any politician whose line is “more arrests, more convictions, more jails” … or to come down like a ton of bricks on any candidate who suggests, however mildly, that more than two million prisoners and nearly one in every thirty Americans under “correctional supervision” may be overdoing it just a tad?
The Casey Anthony verdict is a faint, guttering candle flame in a growing darkness — the darkness of political government, an institution fit only for the eradication of freedom’s light.
Citations to this article:
- Thomas L. Knapp, Casey Anthony and American “Justice”, Des Moines, Iowa Free Press, 07/08/11
- Thomas L. Knapp, Casey Anthony and American “Justice”, Hernando [Florida] Today, 07/07/11
- Thomas L. Knapp, Casey Anthony and American Justice, Counterpunch, 07/07/11
So, what would “justice” mean? Suppose she did do it, and the jury had found her guilty (with adequate evidence). So then she goes to jail. Is that justice? I tend to think no. A restitution system would be better.
But suppose we had a restitution system. If your standard of justice is actual restitution–restoring the victim to the pre-crime position–then justice is usually literally impossible, since it is impossible to unrape or unmurder or unassault someone. So if that is the standard for justice, then justice is always impossible. And the reason for this is that rights are normative and prescriptive, not causal laws. They *can* be violated. Every time a right is violated then justice is destroyed, and can never be regained.
Another view of justice is recognizing that the crime has been done and cannot be undone, but then asking: what is the victim now due? Justice is giving someone their due–and this is a property rights question. A murder victim cannot him or herself get her due, but their heirs or agents can. So what the victim of a crime is “due” is the right to inflict proportional punishment on the aggressor (and to use this right to bargain for some monetary “restitution” award, if they wish). I think this is the only justice possible: permitting the vitim to “get even”. But we have to realize that even this can never undo the crime. So “real” justice is in a sense unattainable; while “practical” justice is attainable but only goes so far to righting things or helping the victim.
So, what would "justice" mean? Suppose she did do it, and the jury had found her guilty (with adequate evidence). So then she goes to jail. Is that justice? I tend to think no. A restitution system would be better.
But suppose we had a restitution system. If your standard of justice is actual restitution–restoring the victim to the pre-crime position–then justice is usually literally impossible, since it is impossible to unrape or unmurder or unassault someone. So if that is the standard for justice, then justice is always impossible. And the reason for this is that rights are normative and prescriptive, not causal laws. They *can* be violated. Every time a right is violated then justice is destroyed, and can never be regained.
Another view of justice is recognizing that the crime has been done and cannot be undone, but then asking: what is the victim now due? Justice is giving someone their due–and this is a property rights question. A murder victim cannot him or herself get her due, but their heirs or agents can. So what the victim of a crime is "due" is the right to inflict proportional punishment on the aggressor (and to use this right to bargain for some monetary "restitution" award, if they wish). I think this is the only justice possible: permitting the vitim to "get even". But we have to realize that even this can never undo the crime. So "real" justice is in a sense unattainable; while "practical" justice is attainable but only goes so far to righting things or helping the victim.
I think everyone is mistaking the trees for the forest. Even if there wasn’t evidence sufficient to prove Casey “… intentionally, and with premeditation, murdered Caylee Anthony,” a jury arguably could have found her guilty of negligent homicide, a lesser included and charged offense, apparently without stacking inferences.
What is Kinsella’s proposal if the convicted “rights violator” is a true pedophile? Or a sociopathic serial killer (or is that redundant)?. How about an incorrigible burglar? Force them them to take a McJob in the community to pay back the victim while they continue to circumvent the system and commit more crimes? Most criminals are too poor, unreliable, or too street smart to satisfy any order to pay “full” restitution to the victim or his heirs. And even where they are, the amounts to pay are relatively small and manageable within the terms of their probation. The unintended beneficiaries of such a scheme are primarily white collar criminals such as CEO’s, investment bankers, politicians, and other assorted Republicans. Engaging in criminal acts for these hominids is a part of their business model and is reflected in their costs of doing business, e.g., liability insurance premiums and lawyers’, P.R. propagandists’, and lobbyists’ fees. Anyone heard of moral hazard? If you can’t or won’t pay restitution, what’s next, so-called privatized prisons renamed as “debtor’s prison”? And finally, if Casey was found guilty, would she pay restitution to herself as heir to her daughter’s estate?
You are an IDIOT!!!
I define Justice as "the absence of crime." The "justice" that is doled out by the criminal justice system is Justice only in a derivative sense — i.e., only insofar as by deterrence, incapacitation, and/or rehabilitation it tends towards the absence or prevention of crime. And these goals would remain as valid in a Stateless criminal justice "system." Retribution — i.e., somehow "undoing" or neutralizing or balancing a crime that in reality can never be undone — as a goal of the criminal justice system is more controversial, but I tend to think as a practical matter that insofar as retribution is a legitimate goal it could ordinarily be "satisfied" as a byproduct of deterrence, incapacitation and/or rehabilitation.
My recent post Norm Pattis and “Strike Lawyer” on the Casey Anthony Verdict
Kinsella supports proportionate punishment, so there would be cases in which that would be necessary. As you note, some criminals would likely have to be imprisoned, for others' safety and sometimes theirs. Wealthier criminals have greater ability to pay restitution-is that bad? As for the specific Anthony case, are there no other relatives that could be considered heirs of Caylee? And if not, the case would likely be brought by someone acting on Caylee's behalf, so restitution would go to cover their legal costs, or a fund to protect or bring justice to other children.
My recent post The Limits of Awareness
You point out the obvious flaw in a restitution-only system – there's no restitution possible for violent crimes. By such reasoning with this case, the only victim is the baby but the baby is dead therefore no one is owed restitution therefore this woman ought not to face any punishment (if she had been guilty).
Casey Anthony is Guilty!!
Maybe she is — but the prosecution didn't prove it, and apparently the jurors didn't have your awesome psychic powers at their disposal so that they could see through the absence of evidence to her guilt.