The rest of the opinions expressed are thus conjecture.

That isn’t the basis of the the legal standard!
That makes zero sense.

Dershowitz should have mentioned Francis Dane (maybe that’s what he meant?) who stopped the Salem Witch trials and was quoted as saying “it is better that 10 witches go free than one innocent be put to death.”

That statement makes more sense than the Biblical quote.

It’s not a question of *believing* Alan Dershowitz, as if I were accepting his conclusions on his personal authority. His editorial is wise because his arguments are persuassive. This makes it quite irrelevant whether he is a “low life,” a issue on which I have no opinion, having never met the man.

Well, that was rather predictable.

You’ve come up with the one exception to the general point I was making. The unique circumstances of the Incarnation change the rules a bit; it doesn’t really change the relevanat point that you, I, or anyone else other than God Incarnate who didn’t hurt Caylee Anthony could NOT do anything to help justice by “paying” for Caylee’s suffering and death.

The problem is that Dershowitz is conflating actual “justice for the victim” with the popular cry of “justice for the victim,” which actually means, “Someone has to pay.” But “someone has to pay” *isn’t* actually justice.

Good point, I’m sure her daughter, if she could have the choice, would rather simply have not suffered whatever it is she suffered in her last moments rather than ‘knowing’ she would be ‘avenged’ by her mom going to the chair.

On the other hand aren’t you running up against a key doctrine from Christian theology? Isn’t the whole concept of Christ built around the idea that ‘someone has to pay’ and while that someone ‘should’ be us it is actually Christ?

Patrick
Finally, consider this: if the point of the law isn’t to determine justice for the victim, or even to reveal the truth (as Dershowitz repeatedly states), the purported crime against the victim must ipso facto be immaterial to the proceedings.

The purpose of law is to set ground rules for the state. Clearly people cannot be allowed to run around killing whoever they want (either because of whim or as ‘revenge’ for previous murders). The state is empowered to stop us from doing so and punish us. The purpose of law is to set up a system of rules that bind the state as it does that and set limits on its power. Hence the state only punishes for crimes when its proveable beyond reasonable doubt.

Millie
We can go on and on analyzing the legal system and how correctly it worked in this case, specially for Casey Anthony; but aren’n we missing the eeal important matter here; how did it work for the dead little girl? Has justice been served for her? Is anyone, paying for what she suffered? Does anyone care?

Do people care? Yes. Is anyone ‘paying for what she suffered’…..well I think so. I think her mother is as well as her grand parents as well as many others who got wrapped up in the case. I’m not generally a very religious person but I do have a sense….or hunch….that nothing in the world is really free…everything gets ‘paid for’ even if we don’t realize it. I’m not that upset by the verdict then. I suspect Casey is and will pay for whatever it is she has done. I wouldn’t wish to be in her place and I don’t say this because I want people to be go vigilante on her…or even shun her. I feel she will ‘pay’ even if everyone forgets her and she lives as normal a life as anyone can.

But as a collory to this, I don’t feel that its my or anyone else’s job to ‘do justice’ here. We have a system and the system is good for its purposes but its not within our ability to set the world right. Convicting her, torturing her, killing her would not make her daughter any less dead.

The outcome is, in fact, perfectly logical.

The answers are, as follows:

1. The “dead little girl” cannot any longer be served by justice. We as a society can, however, demand justice on her behalf, and in this case, her murder has not yet been dealt with by means of justice. However, we do not have absolute assurance that finding Casey guilty would have done that, either.

2. Is anyone paying for what she suffered? No, no one is. However, it would not be just for someone to pay because Caylee suffered, *if it was not the person who caused Caylee to suffer.* And apparently within the limits of human ability, it was not possible to be certain enough that Casey was that person, in order to inflict some kind of punishment on her. That’s life in a world full of humans.

3. Does anyone care? Of course people care. There was a trial as a result of an entire society caring.

4. Has ” legality” replaced ” “morality”? The two are not mutually exclusive. It is an aspect of morality that someone should not be punished unless his or her guilt is satisfactorily proven.

5. Are we been “forced” or ” requested” to legal above moral? Not legal above moral, but moral by means of legal. Again, it isn’t moral to convict someone if the government, with fantastic resources at its disposal, can’t make people believe the person is guilty.

We might all have our private opinions about Casey’s guilt, and it could in fact be that it was unjust that she was not convicted. But we shouldn’t make the simple equation “she got off therefore nobody cares” or “she got off therefore the legal system doesn’t want to hold people accountable.” It’s just that we live in an imperfect world full of imperfect people who have to make decisions with imperfect knowledge, and the best way we’ve figured out to protect all the *innocent* people who are accused of crimes, is to make it reasonably hard to convict anyone. If there’s a better solution than that, I don’t know what it is.