What do we do with cases that are based on circumstantial evidence, which, by the way, is the condition that applies to most murder cases? If we’re deprived of the luxury of a clear DNA connection, a witness to the crime, a video showing the commission of the crime on tape, etc., do we declare the defendant “not guilty” in every such instance? The truth is that very seldom do you see a homicide case that can be characterized as a direct evidence case. Given that, do we make no effort to resolve these other-than-direct evidence cases for the benefit of the victims’ families and for society at large? I would declare that, yes, we do make that effort; what other choice do we realistically have?
What did society do in its efforts at resolving crime before the onset of the scientific and technological evolutions that have resulted in wonderful mechanisms like DNA analysis, videotape recordings, and the like? We asked people to put on their “thinking caps,” as Romper Room’s Miss Jean would say, and draw reasonable conclusions from the behaviors and statements made by the relevant parties. Well, we asked them to do so then, and we should be capable of asking them to do so now. Again, what acceptable alternatives do we have? We cannot function as a structured, civilized, cohesive society and take the position that, in every case where no direct evidence can be found to exist, we automatically determine the defendant to be not guilty.
Most of us remember the Scott Peterson trial of 2004. Does any reasonable person think that Scott Peterson did not kill his wife, Laci Peterson? Of course not. The evidence? The same evidence used in countless numbers of other trials each year that conclude with bad people being put behind bars – many, many pieces of circumstantial evidence. Indeed, the jurors relied heavily on Peterson’s telling of numerous lies after his wife went missing as proof of his guilt. Sound familiar?
Additionally… and this has to be said…people who are truly innocent proclaim that innocence loudly, proudly, and with the greatest vigor; furthermore, they work just as hard as they can to prove that innocence. Those who don’t do so are not entitled to the same level of presumption of innocence, the charged legal standard notwithstanding; that’s just common sense. The law can say that one cannot infer guilt from a defendant’s refusal to testify, but in cases like this one, where testimony from the defendant could clarify much, if not all, of this, it’s impractical to expect others not to look suspiciously at that refusal. If Caylee Anthony’s death was “an accident that spiraled out of control,” then the defendant should take the stand and say that. If there is a more innocent explanation than murder, then say that. However, if you’re not saying anything at all on the stand, and you’ve told all of these lies, you’ve tried to implicate a variety of other people, you’ve floated other theories…and by the singular act of taking the stand and testifying, you could clear all of that up but choose not to….then you deserve the suspicion that naturally follows.
Doubt and reasonable doubt are two different things. Reasonable doubt is supposed to be just that, reasonable. As attorney Jeff Ashton, a prosecutor in the Anthony trial, stated in his part of the close, in order to accept that Casey Anthony was not substantially complicit in the death of her daughter, you have to essentially leave your common sense behind; you have to forget everything you have come to know about how people think and act in the course of living life. Even if you belief that the evidence, direct or circumstantial, does not exist to see her convicted of the charge of premeditated first-degree murder, or even of first-degree felony murder (no premeditation), it would be a grand stretch…that is, as attorney Ashton suggested, it would require you to leave your common sense entirely behind…to think that she is not guilty of at least second-degree murder or, at an absolute minimum, aggravated manslaughter.
I think that in this age of having more and better ways to find direct evidence on behalf of crimes, some people have become so spoiled as a result that they’ve decided it now should be the case that we convict only on the basis of the existence of that evidence. Unfortunately, not only is such evidence not present all of the time, it isn’t present most of the time. So what do we do in all of those cases? Nothing?
Really?
Agree or disagree; please register your comments below.
Follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/robertyetman.
Follow me on Christian Chirp at www.christianchirp.com/robertyetman.
Bob Yetman, Editor-at-Large at Christian Money.com (www.christianmoney.com), is an author of a variety of materials on personal finance and investing, as well as on topics of fitness and self defense, to include the book Investor's Passport to Hedge Fund Profits (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.) and the unarmed combat training DVD Thunderstrikes - How to Develop One Shot, One Kill Striking Power (Paladin Press).
Comments