Was it the Jury's Job to Decide if Casey Anthony Was a 'Good' Mom?

by Gil Kaufman Posted 2011/07/09 11:00:00

Related Topics: Casey Anthony, Jury Trial, Not Guilty, Mom, Moral, Fate, Law Enforcement, Police, Murder, Trial, Editor, Computer, Live, Baby, Cable, Free

Read More

422 votes
Read all 515 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	63 votes	15%
	No	276 votes	65%
	I think the jury...	83 votes	20%

Casey Anthony is a lot of things: a liar, a party girl and the kind of train wreck tabloid editors and cable news chatters slobber over. And, as of July 17, a free woman.

I'll be honest, I somehow managed to avoid all coverage of her trial until last week and really had no idea who she was or what she (allegedly) did until the media noise got so loud that it was impossible to turn on one of the 24-hour cable news channels without seeing live court footage.

What I saw then was a young woman with a sad, confused, blank-looking face who I was told (mostly by HLN's seething Nancy Grace ) had come to embody everything that's wrong with this new generation of reality-show-addicted moms: she was shallow, callous, narcissistic, vain -- and worst of all -- a bad mom.

The anger over the not guilty verdict in Anthony's murder trial in the death of her two-year-old daughter, Caylee, was so intense that more than 250,000 signatures were gathered within the first 36 hours of an announcement asking lawmakers to draft "Caylee's Law," which would make it a felony for a parent to fail to report a missing child to law enforcement.

Jurors in Anthony's trial said they were "sick to our stomach[s] to get that verdict." On Thursday, a judge sentenced Anthony to four years in jail for four misdemeanor counts of lying to police. With time served she'll be out in a week, only to face the fiery indignation of a pitchfork-wielding horde who believe she got away with murder.

The jury in the case had to look at the evidence they had, which, unfortunately, proved only that Anthony waited way longer than anyone might imagine to report her daughter's disappearance and that she didn't "act like" someone who was grieving for her beloved child. They had the deliberate lies, the researching of chloroform on Anthony's computer and a car trunk with traces of chloroform and the smell of a decomposing body. But they also had the defense's claims that Anthony was allegedly molested by her father and that the baby drowned in a swimming pool, neither of which were proven in court.

But with no hard physical evidence and a body too badly decomposed to tie her to the death, they couldn't go on the usual signposts of murder.

What wasn't their job was to determine how a mom should act when her baby goes missing, which is the thing that got so many of the case's watchers so upset. "Can't you see!" they seemed to be screaming at their TV sets. "She's clearly a horrible mom." They wanted justice for a mom they suspected had committed the ultimate maternal sin.

But we can't blame the jury for the verdict any more than we can blame Anthony for not knowing how to respond in the face of such a tragedy. We also can't judge Anthony for her abilities as a mother, and rightly so, neither could the jury. If show's like "Teen Mom" have taught us anything, it's that not everyone is cut out for motherhood (or fatherhood, for that matter.) This trial has reminded us that it's not for a panel of legally inexpert citizens to pass judgment on how a mom "should" do her job.

If there's anything they got right, that is it. And that's probably the only thing they got right, according to most legal experts .

The anger over the verdict has led some to call for an end to sequestered juries or a professional jury system, one in which the fate of alleged murderers is not in the hands of rank amateurs.

But this is the system we've chosen, and while it doesn't always produce the results we would like, it works -- because jurors are not expected to, or allowed to, make moral judgments on the defendants, however sick the results make us.

It feels like part of the public's anger is at the fact that the jury didn't see how clearly bad a mother the party-loving Anthony was (is) and how that fact alone should have been enough to convince them to send her away for life, or death. A guilty verdict would have made trial watchers feel justified in dubbing Anthony the worst mom ever.

Is Casey Anthony a bad mother? I think the answer is pretty obvious. But I also know it's the one thing I'm not mad at the jury for not answering.

+17

Add a comment above

Sister Jean 2011/07/09 19:18:29

I think the jury...

+15
well a good Mom does not hurt her child..if my cat is sick ONE day i am a wreck
>> See Replies

More polls by Gil Kaufman

daddyfrank 2011/07/29 14:00:25

No

DEAR JURORS: Lets see. A child is left in the care of her MOTHER. Child dies. MOTHER fails to report child missing MUCH LESS THE DEATH OF THE CHILD. MOTHER lies to everyone to mislead everyone into thinking child is ok. Grandparents find car that was last seen driven by the MOTHER. It stank like death confirmed by grandparents and others. Grandparents report child missing 31 days after last seeing child WITH MOTHER. MOTHER of child still lies as to whereabouts even claiming to have talked to her that day. MOTHER STILL REFUSES TO REPORT CHILD MISSING. MOTHER NEVER DID EVEN TO THIS DAY. Child is found dead and yet MOTHER will not tell anyone as to why or how child died or even WHY SHE NO LONGER HAD CHILD IN HER CARE. IN NO WAY DID YOU HOLD THE MOTHER ACCOUNTABLE. You made the satement that all was "speculation". It's called CIRCUMSTANTIAL. Are you so naive and lack worldly experance that you can not see. There is no man more blind than one who WILL not see. A cause of death was NEVER needed as the COURT WOULD NEVER ALLOWED THE CASE TO GO TO TRIAL. CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence is as compelling as fact and is allowed in trial and you can convict on it. That's why you heard it. It wasn't for entertainment. If you have no common sence then you should never have served on the jury. Li...

DEAR JURORS: Lets see. A child is left in the care of her MOTHER. Child dies. MOTHER fails to report child missing MUCH LESS THE DEATH OF THE CHILD. MOTHER lies to everyone to mislead everyone into thinking child is ok. Grandparents find car that was last seen driven by the MOTHER. It stank like death confirmed by grandparents and others. Grandparents report child missing 31 days after last seeing child WITH MOTHER. MOTHER of child still lies as to whereabouts even claiming to have talked to her that day. MOTHER STILL REFUSES TO REPORT CHILD MISSING. MOTHER NEVER DID EVEN TO THIS DAY. Child is found dead and yet MOTHER will not tell anyone as to why or how child died or even WHY SHE NO LONGER HAD CHILD IN HER CARE. IN NO WAY DID YOU HOLD THE MOTHER ACCOUNTABLE. You made the satement that all was "speculation". It's called CIRCUMSTANTIAL. Are you so naive and lack worldly experance that you can not see. There is no man more blind than one who WILL not see. A cause of death was NEVER needed as the COURT WOULD NEVER ALLOWED THE CASE TO GO TO TRIAL. CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence is as compelling as fact and is allowed in trial and you can convict on it. That's why you heard it. It wasn't for entertainment. If you have no common sence then you should never have served on the jury. Life is not just about book learning... life is about THINKING. Yes you were expected to put the dots together. We can't change anything but as you look back and think about it. Have you ever put a puzzle together and find several pieces are missing yet you can still know what the picture is? Did you fail to look at the whole puzzle before saying "I can't make out what this is". YOU HELD NO ONE ACCOUNTABLE NOT EVEN THAT CHILD WAS IN MOTHERS CARE. YOU DID NOT HAVE TO KNOW THE CAUSE OF DEATH and THERE WAS ONLY ONE CHARGE THAT CARRIED THE DEATH PENALTY. WAS THE MOTHER NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT CHILD IN ANY WAY. FORGET THE DEATH, THE LIES, FAMILY LIFE. RESPONSIBLITY. I WOULD NEVER WANT ANY OF YOU TO BABYSIT FOR ME. That is why CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence is allowed in a trial. I wish no harm to you other than for every day you wake, someone stops you and ask "WHY?". WHY?
(more)

reply
Chris - The Rowdy One! #187 2011/07/22 15:06:20

No

If we are going to be putting people on trial for if they are a good parent or not then a lot of people will be going to the slammer then.

reply
Dennis 2011/07/14 23:30:13

I think the jury...

who in world doesn't report a child MISSING FOR 31 DAYS????let alone their own child. The only way to equate any rationale to this misfit is make an excuse for her.As for the jury, well they were a jury of her "peers". Between girls gone insane and many of them wanting to be ho's, the selection was shall we say, limited.

reply
alex 2011/07/13 19:05:39
alex to alex 2011/07/13 19:08:06
paddykake 2011/07/12 17:45:44

No

+1
The Lord sees all, she will face her judgememt

reply
alex to paddykake 2011/07/13 19:08:22

+2
in her case, i really hope there is a god to punish her.

reply
HearnoEvil 2011/07/12 17:16:56

No

No, it was to decide if she murdered her child. Too unfortunate moral certainty wasn't their strong points.

reply
Sass 2011/07/12 13:59:04

No

It was the jury's job to find her either guilty or innocent of being a murderer.

reply
sasha 2011/07/11 20:36:36

I think the jury...

I completely agree with this article. The jury did the best they could with what they had and I guarantee if we did have a professional jury, the verdict would not change. The evidence was simply not there. And while it is sickening, it gave the people a chance to create "Caylee's Law" which is indeed, much needed.

reply
CTF 2011/07/11 19:41:58

No

There are plently of terrible parents out there. It doesn't make them murderers.

This is not to say that I think she's innocent. But the trial was about murder, not parenting ability.

reply
Incognito 2011/07/11 19:16:29 (edited)

I think the jury...

+5
I think the jury should of seen Casey as a pathological liar who was out to beat the system. She lied to everyone, the police, her family and friends. It is a fact, that liars can not be trusted, especially when they are in court, facing murder charges. Casey waited as long as she could to report her child missing so that the body would be so badly decomposed, that there would be no DNA evidence. Just the fact that she waited 31 days about her missing daughter, is a clear indication that she wanted to prolong any investigation. And to top it all off, she was out partying while her kid was unaccounted for. I don't even know how the drowning in the pool story even held any water (pun intended) because the child's skull had duck tape over her nose and mouth.

reply
burnz777 2011/07/11 19:08:50

I think the jury...

+3
should have figured out a way to put her in jail, and any parent who lets their kid disappear and end up dead, poor parenting should be a punishable crime.

reply
xcheshirecat 2011/07/11 19:07:52

No

like you said it wasn't why they were in court

this case, is really ugly though : http://www.vancouversun.com/n...

reply
Dogammit 2011/07/11 19:06:36 (edited)

No

+2
This is beside the point. She was not on trial for her skills as a mother, she was on trial for murder. So the the answer is "no", it was not the jury's job. But since it WAS the jury's job to return a verdict of guilty or not guilty in the charges of murder and negligent manslaughter, they apparently felt that the prosecution did not provide enough real evidence to convict her of murder, so they were wrong and failed to do their job.

The following was proven: Casey Anthony waited 31 days before reporting her child missing. She lied to the police 4 times. Duct tape was found placed over the child's face. The searches for chloroform and the decomposing smell in the car and the hair in the trunk are further proof. The facts are that she was the mother and guardian of Kaylee and her daughter died on her watch, so she needed to be found guilty.

Waiting 31 days to report your missing daughter is NEGLIGENCE. Lying to the police is reasonable evidence that she did not want the police to find the body. Somebody placed duct tape over the child's face. Who? All these things add up to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she was somehow involved in her child's death and knew about it.

These things in combination with Casey Anthony's demeanor during the trial, make it obvious to...

This is beside the point. She was not on trial for her skills as a mother, she was on trial for murder. So the the answer is "no", it was not the jury's job. But since it WAS the jury's job to return a verdict of guilty or not guilty in the charges of murder and negligent manslaughter, they apparently felt that the prosecution did not provide enough real evidence to convict her of murder, so they were wrong and failed to do their job.

The following was proven: Casey Anthony waited 31 days before reporting her child missing. She lied to the police 4 times. Duct tape was found placed over the child's face. The searches for chloroform and the decomposing smell in the car and the hair in the trunk are further proof. The facts are that she was the mother and guardian of Kaylee and her daughter died on her watch, so she needed to be found guilty.

Waiting 31 days to report your missing daughter is NEGLIGENCE. Lying to the police is reasonable evidence that she did not want the police to find the body. Somebody placed duct tape over the child's face. Who? All these things add up to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she was somehow involved in her child's death and knew about it.

These things in combination with Casey Anthony's demeanor during the trial, make it obvious to me that she is guilty of at LEAST negligent manslaughter, and I have no reasonable doubt about it. How the jury could not return at least ONE of these guilty verdicts is a mystery to me. And for the record, yes she is a bad mom.
(more)

reply
FYI 2011/07/11 18:32:03

No

+1
I think the fact she was in the situation she was proves just what kind of mom she was.
The jury's job was to determine her innocence or guilt is the girls death.

reply
Teancum79 2011/07/11 18:07:50

No

A jury has 2 jobs. 1 decide if the accused committed the crime based on evidence convincing them beyond a reasonable doubt. 2 determine if the law in question is just and constitutional. Based on what I've seen of the case I have no doubt that she is a poor (or worse) mother, but criminal trials are not to decide the quality of a parent.

reply
7th PLANET "Alien Stud Muffin" 2011/07/11 18:05:30

I think the jury...

+3
I think the Jury's job was to THINK!!! They expected the Prosecutor to serve the defendant on a silver platter. These 15 nitwits were more interested in getting home to celebrate the holiday they missed. They were supposed to use their brains. This wasn't a CSI movie they were performing in! It was a real life drama. A mother reported her baby missing 30 days after the fact. Then the baby's body was found decomposing 6 months later, less than a quarter of a mile from where the child lived. The baby's mouth had duct tape across it. Oh did I mention the baby was DEAD! OMG what IDIOTS!!! IDIOTS. . . . . they live among us!!!

reply
Jensenmk 2011/07/11 17:47:58

I think the jury...

+1
watched too much CSI genre tv shows; they expected evidence on a silver platter that didn't require any thought (or paying attention) to come to a verdict. Instead they got evidence that required analytical thought.

Motive - what does that have to do with anything; how would it justify putting duct tape over Caylee's mouth, whether she was alive or dead already!?!

Method - does it really matter whether she suffacated due to drowing, chloroform, or just the duct tape...really!?! Dead is dead, right?

reply
Slade 2011/07/11 16:32:57

No

Opinions like this are what comes from allowing people to be tried by the media in this country.

The jurors were given much more accurate details of this case than any of the 24 hour news loop experts on SH that believe our court system should be allowed to sentence people to death without so much as a stitch of evidence.

reply
mwg0735 2011/07/11 16:15:04
FatherL... to mwg0735 2011/07/11 16:46:01

I think we have another enemy of freedom here. So you think they should be allowed to ordered people to get their tubes tied even if when found not guilty of a crime? Sounds like tyranny to me.

reply
mwg0735 to FatherL... 2011/07/11 17:03:01
FatherL... to mwg0735 2011/07/11 17:19:32 (edited)

Sure. She probably is guilty but the proof wasnt there to find her guilty for the crimes the prosecutors were pursuing. The prosecutors were negligant in pursuing charges that they did not have the evidence to prove beyond doubt. If they went with a lesser charge of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, instead of aggravated manslaughter, they probably would have had a different outcome. But to say that the government or community should beable to decide beyond the juries ruling to sterilize or tie the tubes of people found not guilty that is opening the door to outrageous forms of tyranny and uncontrolled eugenics. It is sick for anyone to even suggest such an action and disturbing and frightening to see people who suggest removing not only other peoples freedoms, but their own. Be careful what you call for because it effects your own environment and the very laws made to protect you. You are a disgrace to American concept of Constitutional law and liberty.

reply
7th PLA... to FatherL... 2011/07/11 18:09:05

+2
I think he was making a comment in disgust! A lot of us are really pissed off about this decision! Justice was not served in this decision.

reply
Lanikai 2011/07/11 15:37:08

No

+6
No it was their job to decide if she killed her kid, but they were too stupid to even get that right. NO ONE ELSE had access.

Her parents mostly raised the kid, so of course she was well taken care of, RIGHT UP UNTIL it was Casey's turn 24/7 for a period of time and THAT is when the girl was murdered, hmmmmmmm? Anyone else find that interesting.

reply
FatherL... to Lanikai 2011/07/11 16:00:46

There is a difference between 'knowing' someone committed a crime and having the evidence to find them guilty beyond reasonable doubt, which "is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative imaginary or forced doubt … on the other hand, if after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but which waivers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable. It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look to that proof.”

reply
Lanikai to FatherL... 2011/07/11 16:02:31

+3
based on all that was presented, there was no way NOT to find her guilty. So, I go with really incredibly stupid jury on this one.

reply
FatherL... to Lanikai 2011/07/11 16:31:14

Well, you are incorrrect. There was really no way to charge her with the crime the prosecutors were pursuing. The charges being argued were for first degree murder, aggravated manslaughter and aggravated child abuse. First Degree Murder is the deliberate, planned act of Murder. One must have thought about it, planned the murder and executed it. FDM are often proven not guilty only because of a lack of evidence providing proof beyond doubt concerning the planning of the murder itself. As with this case, not having determined the actual cause of death to the victim makes it almost impossible to prove whether the murder was premeditated or an act the occured spontaneously followed by a cover up, which would constitute second degree murder. For the aggravated manslaughter charge they must find that Casey Anthony’s acts caused the death of Caylee or that the death of the Caylee was caused by culpable negligence by Casey Anthony. Again, without a cause of death this cannot be proven.

reply
Edie to FatherL... 2011/07/11 17:13:37

+3
" For the aggravated manslaughter charge they must find that Casey Anthony’s acts caused the death of Caylee or that the death of the Caylee was caused by culpable negligence by Casey Anthony."

Even if Caylee drowned in the family swimming pool, was it not negligence by not watching her every minute?? She was 2 years old for Christ's sake! Every member of that jury should be prosecuted for this miscarriage of justice! Even a blind, deaf, mute person with even half a brain would have found her guilty of at least aggravated manslaughter.

reply
FatherL... to Edie 2011/07/11 17:30:06

There was no determination for the cause of death. The autospy report shows the cause of death as 'undetermined'.

reply
7th PLA... to FatherL... 2011/07/11 18:13:20

+2
OK the little girl put 3 pcs. of duct tape across her mouth. . . . crawled into 3 bags. . . tied the bags shut from the outside. . . . then walked a quarter mile to the swamp. . . . . walked out in the water and layed down in it. There she stayed for 6 months. She may have been dead when her body was found.

reply
FatherL... to 7th PLA... 2011/07/11 18:46:44

That still doesnt provide the evidence required for the charges brought against her. They coudnt determine if the duct taping and bagging was the cause of the death or was done after death occured. It also does not provide any evidence to support premeditation. The prosecution was pursuing 1st degree murder, in which they MUST prove without doubt that the murder was planned prior to it being executed. The failure here to convict Casey took place by the prosecutors, not the jury.

reply
7th PLA... to FatherL... 2011/07/11 19:10:21

+3
The jury's job was to do just a little bit of thinking. But I guess that was toooo much to ask for. This case is soooo polarizing. You'll never convince me. Sorry.

reply
FatherL... to 7th PLA... 2011/07/11 19:26:15

I dont need to convince you, just pointing out the fact you dont understand law and the definitions of crimes under the US code. The jury obviously did think; the thought in accordance to the laws. To say and even prove Casey is guilty of murder is not enought to convict her for FIRST degree murder. They can have all the proof needed to show that she is guilty of killing Caylee, but if they cant determine if it was premeditated or not then they can not find her guilty of first degree murder, that would only constitute second degree murder. And, for the aggravated manslaughter charge they have to have the cause of death determined, so with an autopsy report that is "undetermined" that charge wont pass.

reply
FatherL... to Edie 2011/07/11 18:36:10

You cant charge them with a miscarriage of justice when they followed exactly what the law requires of them. In fact, you cant charge a jury with miscarriage of justice ever. Even for a case will guilt is definate, they jury can rule jury nullification and let the person go free if they all agreed there was reason to do so. What is wrong with you people? Obsessed with locking people up. I understand people being upset because I am also convinced she is responsible for Caylee's death, but you must still follow the requirements of the legal process. The only ones to blame here in my opinion are the prosecutors who pursued charges they knew were farfetched and couldn't be proven. They are experts (or considering how they ran this case, maybe not); they should know what it take to find someone guilty and with the gaps in their evidence (like cause of death and proof of premeditation) they were negligant. There many crimes that they could have pursued and proven but they did not. And, the cause of death was not determined to be a drowning, so that argument has no relevance. People really need a course in law apparently.

reply
yonatan to FatherL... 2011/08/23 11:16:59

Ur pathetic

reply
FatherL... to yonatan 2011/08/23 16:00:25 (edited)

Why dont you formulate an argument instead of resulting to simple name calling, which is the actions of those who cant establish an argument to counter the claims before them? You can call me pathetic, I really dont mind, but it is your mindless response that truely fits that term.

reply
Mishka 2011/07/11 15:33:11

No

+2
There was no evidence that tied the defendant to the alleged murder, all of the prosecutions evidence was purely circumstantial. She may be a horrible mother but it that was not on trial. We all know she did it, but nothing tied her to the murder. I cannot believe the prosecution actually took this case to court with this little evidence. In the end it is better that 100 guilty men go free then 1 innocent man to wrongfully go to prison.

reply
Lanikai to Mishka 2011/07/11 15:39:26

+3
And Scott Peterson is on death row with far less evidence of any sort, and Casey was the only one with access to Casey during the period of time she died. Life isn't like the TV show CSI, evidence is wrecked by being in water as this was for months following a tropical storm.This was a crappy jury, and each of them will pay a very high personal price for their crap verdict. .

reply