The Case of Socialized Justice Against Casey: Understanding the Not Guilty Verdict
"I was pleasantly surprised with mixed emotions on the not guilty jury verdict for murder and all lessor charges but guilty for lying to a police officer. First I will say the four charges of lying to a police officer are... well... let me just say when police officers in the United States Citizen Farm start going to jail for lying in affidavits then going to jail for lying to a police officer would at least be equitable. That is a very generous compromising statement because obviously there is nothing criminal about lying. Where is the crime when no property damaged or no person is injured? At best, lying or fraud are in the realm of so called civil sanctions which would be actions deemed to warrant a monetary remedy. In Libertopia, without socialized justice coerced by the state, so called civil actions might involve a persons reputation via contractual remedies, reputation reporting, risk assessments for insurance purposes, or discrimination in a free market.
Long before the trial started I felt Casey had already been found guilty in the media. Public opinion seemed to be heavily against any concept of innocence primarily due to lying. I fully expected Casey to end up with a long jail sentence. Jurors have to come from somewhere. If everyone believes violence should be used against dirty, brown, Mexican, illegal human beings because they are raping, pillaging, and plundering American jobs, women, or welfare should a brown person expect a fair trial for crossing imaginary borders not created by God while traveling on God's green earth? I did not consider it reasonable to believe there were many people in Florida who have not heard something about Casey from friends or media in the three years leading up to the trial.
During the trial I did not feel the state was able to provide evidence for the five basic questions involving murder. Who, what, when, where, and why. The state presented a theory and a bunch of coincidental circumstances to fit their theory. Clearly, the most controversial aspects of the trial are findings of not guilty for murder and all lessor charges. Media polls were running about 80/20 for a finding of guilt leading up to jury deliberation. I was shocked at the decision. I was overcome with a short episode of optimism there may yet be hope in Amerika for liberty.
That optimism was quickly replaced with a dose of reality. Let's not forget how socialized justice works. That is the system we have in the United States, socialized justice, redistributing wealth from some to others. The bean counters figured out a long time ago trials are expensive. The justice illusion would quickly come to an end if all accused persons demanded trials. People might start to question why they are paying higher taxes for trials involving someone who simply smoked a joint. People might start questioning why they are being taxed to pay for other trials that do not involve personal injury or property damage. The question that must be asked is how does the system avoid a lot of jury trials maintaining such a high percentage of plea deals? People are overbooked and overcharged. The reason is leverage. If you are charged and booked with absurd charges the state is in a better negotiating position to negotiate down to realistic charges in a plea deal. If people were accurately charged the bean counters have figured out more people would demand trials. The statist mathematics mitigating risk of trials.
So called experts who are aware people get convicted all the time on circumstantial evidence were surprised by the outcome of this case. What the experts did not account for is that when you have a case that rises to the level of OJ, jurors might actually pay attention at trial. In high profile cases jurors might actually take a few extra moments to consider whether the state has proven it's case beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt. In high profile cases there is a lot of peer or society pressure on jurors to get it right that isn't present in a run of the mill murder trial.
After the verdict, the state prosecutor announced in a media interview there are one hundred to one hundred and fifty thousand other cases pending prosecution. If a run of the mill jury trial costs thirty thousand dollars, Florida taxpayers can expect to spend almost four billion dollars if every person charged demanded a jury trial. However, at the current jury trial rate of less than five percent Florida taxpayers should expect to spend less than two hundred million.
There are no losers. How great of a sales pitch is that? The system is happy because spending a few million on one trial is still cheaper than fifty to ninety percent of accused persons demanding jury trials. The defendant is happy with the verdict. Attorneys, judges, police officers, etc are all happily cashing weekly paychecks. Citizens are happy they will not get a tax increase.
The reason experts are baffled is because cases like OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony are Neo's of the Socialized Injustice Matrix. They are anomalies of human choice that demand the system actually prove trumped up charges lacking evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of plugged in piers. While the odds may be greatly against the accused, once in a while even plugged in jurors can produce an expert contradicting result when natural market forces such as peer pressure are at work. One can only marvel at how effective the Justice Matrix is at persuading people to believe in socialism and the illusion of justice. It probably did not help the prosecution selecting a jury from one of the larger Ron Paul markets in Florida... but that is a discussion or analysis for a different article."
