Innocence, in a sense

Let me first begin by saying I do not personally like Casey Anthony. I think she is, at best, an utterly irresponsible, incompetent parent and a pathological liar. At worst, she may be a cold-blooded killer of the most unnatural sort.

That said, I’m ok with the verdict the Florida jury handed down last week.

I can already hear the hissing and the booing from my imaginary audience. Nearly everything I’ve seen on Facebook and Twitter or heard in everyday conversation has been outrage that Casey Anthony was not convicted and/or sentenced to death. Even people I know that generally have no interest in or opinion on news topics seem to be overwhelmingly disgusted by the outcome of the trial. 

I guess I really should not be taken aback by this response. The first cause of this collective dismay is almost certainly because this has been a media story for years now.

Not only that, but from the very beginning of this story, our supposedly impartial news media has pretty much agreed that she was guilty and has been sitting back waiting for the jury to concur.

Not surprisingly, the public seemed to follow the media’s lead in presuming the outcome of the trial.

I wouldn’t necessarily argue it was an unfair response to have to the case. There was a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence and a heart-wrenching back story, and it dealt with the death of an innocent little girl. The natural reaction is to want justice for Caylee.

But it isn’t quite that simple. Though it is not explicitly stated in any of our founding documents, one of the elemental ideas brought to us from English Common Law is the presumption of innocence, meaning the burden of evidence rests with the prosecution. The standard that must be met by the prosecution’s evidence in a criminal case is that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime.

It seems eminently possible that Casey Anthony killed her daughter, but behind the mountain of circumstantial evidence, there is still room to believe there could be another logical explanation for the death of Caylee Anthony.

Before we follow the lead of the Nancy Graces of the world and begin forming mobs to hunt down people we are personally sure are guilty, let’s remember the most fundamental tenet of the American legal system — we are to presume innocence until the individual is proven guilty.

Do I personally believe Casey Anthony killed her daughter? It is entirely possible, perhaps even probable. Is there room for reasonable doubt that she did not? I think so, and more importantly, so did a jury of her peers.

I’m not asking you to like the verdict. I’m only asking that you respect the process that led to it. If you can do that, then it follows that you should respect the decision that resulted from it.

­— jontodd@indiana.edu