Justice is Not Equal, It is only Fair

After taking a hard look at the facts surrounding the recent jury verdict, I can see how it is possible to come to a decision of "not guilty". We may be looking at the case and for that matter all cases, from the wrong perspective.

It is plain to see that based on the letter of the law, Casey Anthony received justice under the law, but it is not quite clear how the actual victim, Caylee, received justice. As for the equality, there was none, but for the fairness under the law, it was fair. It clearly states:

The Sixth Amendment itself specifies seven rights applicable “in all criminal prosecutions”: (1) speedy trial; (2) public trial; (3) trial by jury; (4) notice of the accusation; (5) confrontation of opposing witnesses; (6) compulsory process for obtaining favorable witnesses; and (7) the assistance of counsel (see Counsel, Right to).

Found at: http://www.answers.com/topic/amendment-vi-to-the-u-s-constitution

 

The law affords each citizen, and I do say citizen, because it is now unlawfully being applied to non-citizens as well; the same treatment. So the real argument does not lay in the fairness of the trial, it was fair. The fact still remains that Caylee, the true victim, will not be able to come back and tell anyone who did it. What is the thing that helped Casey escape without a real reprimand is that fact that there was not sufficient evidence. In a case for capital murder, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but that very doubt is up for personal interpretation. This is where the inequality can seep in.

I have seen cases like the Scott Peterson case; he was convicted with a body, and a theory. Not a shred of evidence pointing to him as the killer, yet he was convicted [1]. Why? Because justice is not equal, it is only fair. It was fair for him to have a trial by a jury of his peers. They deliberated. He was found guilty. Casey was tried by a jury of her peers. They deliberated. She was found not guilty. What was gruesome was that both had the same attitude, both had the same presupposed motive, freedom. The only problem was that Lacey was pregnant and Scott was a male, who everyone perceived him as a cheating, lying, and murderer. This played to his disadvantage. Casey lied and did so with no regard, but still the jury saw her as being set up, a well played defense.

Now if the law were equal in its distribution, both would either be in jail and both would be set free, not so. Casey was able to hide behind her guilt as a defense. Scott's guilt was what killed his defense.

Whatever people think about either of them, what is worthy to note is that justice was dished out fairly, but not even close to being equal.

Now I return to the fact of Caylee's justice. In both cases, the victim was being fought for by the prosecution or the state. Yet in Scott’s case, the victim was used as a tool to invoke emotions and strengthen their argument. In the Casey trial, Caylee, was not seen as the victim, but rather Casey was. This was very
unusual since the idea is to find out who and not what as in the Peterson trial. Circumstantial was her friend while it was Scott's enemy.

I have stood by the fact that I believe that justice under the law is not always going to come to a point of common sense or even truth, it is going to go to the lawyer who can convince the jury, not the public of innocence or guilt without any doubt. The problem is that doubt is in opposition to truth. Doubt says that if I have a slightly small reason to believe the facts, then there is no guilty verdict. But doubt does not say a person who is innocent, if there is a slight chance they are guilty, the verdict is guilty.

In most cases, the burden of proof is on the side of the prosecution [2], but this is not a well plan. For if the perceived guilty can lie well enough, they go free. Liars are good at their game and when they gamble, the law says that they have a greater chance to win[3]. Now, presuming innocence is only for some people, in some cases, and in some places. If this were not so, then Scott, would not be guilty. He must be innocent too. This is not the case because the law is not equal, it is only fair. Fairness does not always come out in equal portions, therefore some innocent will go free and some will be convicted, but here is the dilemma, a greater proportion of guilty will go free than that of the innocent. Why? Because the very nature of the guilty to lie, cheat, and steal, is protected by the law under the presumption of innocence idea.

Casey, if she is the killer, and we may never truly know, was able to avert the law and any evidence that would have convicted her was completely tainted. One could argue that if she was the killer, she was very methodical; her dad was a law enforcement officer. She could have learned a lot. Also, the facts were by
common sense definition against her, but the facts are not what were argued, only the law. Under the law, it is always possible to be guilty and go free, but if you are innocent, you were never let go to be free, because you were never guilty in the first place. The law is not equal, it is only fair.

1. http://articles.cnn.com/2004-11-12/justice/peterson.verdict_1_rick-...

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

3. http://articles.cnn.com/1998-12-31/politics/1998_12_31_impeachment_...