- The Washington Times - Thursday, July 14, 2011

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

While still recovering from a sore neck from continuously nodding my head in agreement with the prosecution during the Casey Anthony murder trial, I think I’ve pinpointed why much of the nation is in shock over last week’s unexpected verdict (“When ‘reality’ leaves justice undone,” Politics, July 8).

In the American judicial system, a defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty. My feeling is that if a mother doesn’t report her child missing for 31 days, goes out clubbing as if she’s a newly liberated woman, pathologically lies to the police and her parents about the child’s whereabouts, has the stench of a dead body coming from her car and is on videotape mocking what would ultimately be her defense, that woman should be considered guilty unless miraculously proven innocent.

Needless to say, for all the post-trial accolades heaped on the defense lawyers, they didn’t even bother to make the case that she’s innocent of the charged capital crimes. After all, what falsely accused person wouldn’t be anxious to take the stand in their own defense and proclaim to the world, “Hey, I didn’t do it - you got the wrong person”? But they didn’t do that. They didn’t want their client to be subjected to a fierce cross-examination that would rip her story to shreds.

And so because a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, she walks free. Is this justice? Is this end result what the Founding Fathers envisioned our judicial system to produce?

How do we fix this? I’m going to open up a can of worms by saying that in the world of common sense - in some cases - a defendant should be considered guilty until proven innocent. We can call this new legal precedent “The Casey Anthony Exception.”

EUGENE R. DUNN

Medford, N.Y.

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide