Did Casey do it?

Did Casey murder Caylee? No one has the right to say, and no one even has the right to an opinion on the matter except the person with certain knowledge or the jury in the case of the State of Florida v. Casey Marie Anthony.

Some TV personalities have asked viewers whether they think Casey is guilty or not--as if the vote, as if what respondents thought about the matter, makes a difference. (It probably does: getting responses may bind viewers, at least for a time, to a given channel or keep them, at least for a while, tuned in. It whips up a little frenzy.)

Outsiders to the trial--those who have had no access to the data provided in court, those who have heard none of the arguments for and against the charges brought against the defendant in the case, those who were not eyewitnesses at the scene of the alleged crime--do not have adequate information to make a sound decision. Statements the attorneys provide to the press and reports in the media are insufficient to guide the general public to reach any reliable conclusion.

Yet what people outside the courthouses think and say can have some serious consequences to our society in the long run. On July 7, a lightning strike near the spot where the remains of Caylee Marie Anthony came to rest prompted at least one person to assert that the angels are displeased with the verdict in the trial. At least one other person asserted that God has "spoken" and the conclusion we should draw is that Casey is guilty.* Yes, and the way tuna fish was arranged in a particular can the other day is a sign that God hates the commercialization of Christmas.

Such mindlessness represents one of the greatest threats to any civilization. Many beliefs are groundless; sorting them out, testing them against observations and subjecting them to rational analysis are among the few but effective ways we can avoid descending into superstition and tilting toward a Dark Age populated with scores of imaginary, horrifying--but never witnessed--creatures in enchanted forests.

Nothing can--and maybe nothing should--prevent us from having intuitions, hunches, doubts, premonitions, or beliefs. But we should realize that beliefs are not knowledge.

With many situations in life, we have nothing but hunches to guide us. But in legal proceedings and, for that matter, in many areas of ordinary life, hunches are woefully inadequate and, indeed, very dangerous. A statement like "He just looks guilty; he must have done something!" is enough to get a potential juror disqualified during voir dire.

Fortunately our system of justice in general provides us great protection against the influence of mere opinion and irrational suppositions. Were courts to let ungrounded viewpoints sway judges or juries, we would all be in serious danger; our country would risk disintegration.

We can trust that mobs will not lynch our citizens on the basis of mere suspicions if we continue to respect and support our rational system of justice. Public opinion can sometimes have an impact on the judicial system. Public outrage over the outcome of a trial may prompt authorities to reexamine a case and, when new evidence comes to light, call for a retrial. But the correction of injustice should ultimately occur in the appellate courts and not in the media and not in the streets and not in the minds of casual observers.

Reference
*Bianca Prieto and Arelis R. Hernández, Orlando Sentinel (July 7, 2011), "Lightning strike at Caylee memorial 'could be a sign from the angels'" Retrieved 2011-07-09 from http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-casey-anthony-...