The requested page could not be found.
Are you looking for:
In the summer of 2011, many Americans were caught up in the Casey Anthony trial. Caylee Anthony was last seen in June 2008. Many were skeptical of the story her mother, Casey Anthony, told the police. Many more thought Anthony's partying behavior while her child was missing was damning evidence of guilt. Crowds outside the courthouse shouted, "Justice for Caylee!" Television stations aired the trial live, while others played bits of video on the evening news. The entire nation waited for the verdict, many believing there was no doubt of a guilty verdict. But the verdict read "not guilty." How could this be? The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. Allegations were made that evidence was mishandled and that the case relied a great deal on forensics. After the remains were exposed to the elements, little forensic evidence remained. The police had only the bones of a child and remnants of duct tape. The forensic evidence could not conclusively prove that Anthony killed her child.
This case demonstrates that a jury cannot return a verdict based on public opinion, media pressure, or even personal instincts. Members of a jury must base the verdict on the evidence presented. People are not infallible, and mistakes are made. Evidence can be mishandled, misinterpreted, or misplaced. Nature's elements can take their toll on evidence. Although no signs of incompetence or misconduct were found, due to sensationalism, the Casey Anthony case brought the behind-the-scenes actions of the criminal justice system to the attention of the American public.
This resource provides instruction for users to:
- Define terms related to criminal justice injustice
- Discuss inadvertent injustice within the criminal justice system
- Describe deliberate victimization within the criminal justice system
- Identify sources of injustice by the police
- Examine possible solutions for police injustice