I seem to have a different opinion on this than a lot of you do. I wrote an essay on this yesterday, so I'm just gonna post it here.
I dont know if any of you people know how the legal system works, so Ill explain something briefly. To charge someone of capital (first degree) murder, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. If the prosecution cant completely prove it, the jury legally cant convict.
Now, if we think onto the evidence of the Casey Anthony trial, most of the evidence is circumstantial. What does that mean? There is no DNA evidence or hard evidence in any form involved in the case. Seeing as though their main evidence consisted of the small traces of chloroform in the trunk of Caseys car and the internet searches on her computer. Red flag right there: internet searches dont really mean anything. I can tell you that within the last week, I have Googled cyanide, and I dont plan on killing anyone. As far as the chloroform, it was barely detectable. A car smelling like someone died in there and the fact that the woman didnt call police is not enough to convict her on.
I honestly believe that if the death penalty werent what the prosecution was shooting for, Casey would have been found guilty. Think about this: youre in a jury and you are kind of convinced that the defendant did it, but not completely. Are you going to condemn them to death for it? Also, why should somebody get killed for killing someone else? NEWSFLASH! This isnt biblical times. An eye for an eye shouldnt apply, and isnt killing someone on the side of cruel and unusual punishment?
Look, Im not saying that this woman is an innocent angel; Im just saying that, in the eyes of the law, this woman is not guilty of capital murder. Does this mean I think shes innocent? Nope. I think shes guilty as sin. But, if I were a juror, whos to say that Id feel the same way? Jose Baez was able to convince these jurors, by lack of evidence and otherwise, that Casey is not guilty of most of the crimes that she had been indicted on. She was, however, found guilty on the charge of lying to police.
So, Im asking you all to think of it this way: YOU have not heard all of the evidence. YOU are not a juror. YOU do not know what went on. Im sure that if you had any doubt in your mind that a defendant didnt commit capital murder and they were possibly facing death for it, you would acquit them. And, if the Casey is guilty, karma will do its thing.