WHY DO THE GUILTY GO FREE— Like Casey Anthony— Lady Justice is becoming blind, deaf, and DUMB

Is America ready to see a repulsive, ugly woman in the pages of a nudie magazine? Get ready, because it will come. Here comes “Racey Casey”.  Casey Anthony has been offered half a million dollars to pose nude for Hustler magazine (owned by the equally hideous degenerate, Larry Flynt). She is also getting offers for other photo sessions. Sure, Casey is a pretty girl, but she has shown the world the black evil and horrid ugliness of her soul. Only a person who is blind to morality, or a kindred evil spirit, could find any beauty in Casey Anthony. But for 3 years, blind boys and dark-sighted men have been drooling over her, like moths to a flame, like the fools that they are. There are probably a million of them, and they will buy the magazines with Casey’s nudie photos, helping her to profit from her crimes.

Most people have been following the Casey Anthony trial in Florida. It is now over, and Casey is now free, while her 2-year-old daughter is still dead. This is the young mother who failed to report her baby daughter missing for a month, while partying like a whore and lying to her family, finally forcing her own tormented mother to call 911. Then she proceeded to lie to the police with the boldness of a murderer. She fabricated a non-existent job, a non-existent nanny, and a non-existent dead squirrel in her car. She used up any reasonable benefit of the doubt by the third or fourth brazen lie to the police. This is one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in America. Casey belongs in prison, but instead she is considering an offer from Hustler magazine to pose in the nude, for half a million bucks, plus 10% of the profits.

 Here are the charges against Casey, and the verdicts:

 1. First-degree murder                                            Verdict- NOT GUILTY

2. Aggravated manslaughter of a child                   Verdict- NOT GUILTY

3. Aggravated child abuse                                      Verdict- NOT GUILTY

4. Providing false information to a police officer     Verdict- GUILTY

5. Providing false information to a police officer     Verdict- GUILTY

 What, only two counts of lying to the police? Anyone who has followed the case knows that she was caught in more lies than that. I guess the prosecutors thought they had a slam-dunk on the greater charges, and just threw in a couple of counts of lying to police as insurance. It’s a good thing they did, because that is all the jury gave them. They did not even get child abuse. The jury did not see any of what Casey did as child abuse….. such as failing to report Caylee missing for a month, or knocking out her baby with chloroform, so she could go party hard. Of course, this was not proven, but it was proven that SOMEONE at the Anthony home searched the internet for information on chloroform, and Casey’s mother made a pathetic lying attempt to say that she had done it, which was proven wrong by computer records. It was also proven that there were traces of chloroform in the trunk of Casey’s car. There is only one possible reason for the presence and use of chloroform, and that reason was to force her helpless daughter to go to sleep, the last time to put her to sleep forever, whether by accident or on purpose. And while her daughter was “missing”, Casey got a tattoo that reads “Bella Vita”, which means beautiful life in Italian. Rather than grieving for her “missing” daughter, she was partying and celebrating her achievement of a beautiful life, after ridding herself of the hindrance of an unwanted child.

 All of this, and much more disturbing evidence, was ignored by the jury, who only held Casey accountable for lying, but at the same time rewarded her richly for lying, by essentially believing her lies!!! Casey lied to her family and friends for a month about her missing child, and then lied to police and lawyers about it for 3 years. Her lies worked, and now she can go back to her “Bella Vita”…..  but now as a celebrity with serious money-making potential. How could the jury be so blind as to reward this hideous monster for all her lies, while thinking that they were punishing her for her lies? Because from the jury selection process, they were sure to be morally weak and confused. They also had a faulty idea of “reasonable doubt”. Several of the jury members have expressed regrets about their not-guilty verdicts, but it is too late.

 The jurors in this case were bad enough, and we shall see how that generally happens, but this entire Casey Anthony case is just a symptom of the rotten disease that has stricken our so-called justice system from top to bottom, forcing it to stray from sound principles of logic and morality. In short, that rotten disease is liberal / progressive philosophy, but let me describe it in more specific terms, beginning with the distortion of the idea that justice should be “blind.”

 In the American court system, justice is said to be “blind,” meaning impartial and without bias, in considering the weight of all evidence. In this context, it can be a good thing. This concept is represented by the traditional image of the Lady of Justice, with a pair of scales held high in one hand, a sword held in the other hand, and a blindfold over her eyes. Such a famous statue stands atop the Central Court building in London, England.

 In ancient Egypt, courts of law met in darkened chambers, so that the judge could not fully see the defendant, accuser, or witnesses. He had to make his judgment on the facts alone, being “blinded” to the social class or appearance of the people involved. Perhaps this also protected the judge from being recognized. This concept of “blindness” is in severe conflict with real justice. If the judge is easily swayed by appearances, or bases a judgment on fear, then he or she should not be a judge. We must not blindfold the judge or the defendant; we must find a better judge. It is absurd to deprive justice of eyesight, whether figuratively or literally. Real justice must remove the blindfold from “lady justice”, and give her eyes in the back of her head, as well.

Instead, the way we are going, there is a better symbol for our rotten justice system, and it comes from an obscure branch of Japanese Buddhism, called Tendai Buddhism:

These monkeys are depicting the teaching of  “speak no evil, see no evil, hear no evil”.  The inspiration for the  “No Evil” monkeys seems to originate in the Analects of Confucius in the 2nd to 4th century BC:  “Look not at what is contrary to goodness;  listen not to what is contrary to goodness;  speak not what is contrary to goodness;  make no movement which is contrary to goodness” (非禮勿視, 非禮勿聽,非禮勿言, 非禮勿動). This is four phrases, and some sculptures add a fourth monkey with its arms crossed, depicting “do no evil.”  It is likely that these phrases were shortened and simplified after the Confucian teachings were brought into Japan by Chinese Buddhists. The monkey sculptures became popular in Japan, and then elsewhere, and then Gandhi made them more popular by buying a set for himself, which is displayed in the Gandhi Museum in India. But he, of all people, saw evil and did something about it, so he did not follow the philosophy of the monkeys.

I have a great respect for Confucius, because his great philosophy has always contributed to the power and greatness of China, despite the efforts of the communist government to suppress it. But getting back to the monkeys, they are a dangerous simplification of  the philosophy of Confucius. This supposedly wise portrayal of “three wise monkeys” sitting on their butts who “speak no evil, see no evil, hear no evil” now represents a pacifist philosophy that may avoid doing evil oneself, but does nothing to stop it in others. It turns a person into an enabler, an accomplice, a useful idiot of evil, who refuses to see evil and allows evil persons a free reign. There is nothing wise about it, and it is no way to achieve justice. But this is a good picture of what our American court system has become.

 In America, the traditional idea of “blind justice” has gone terribly wrong, as best represented by the dreadful way juries are treated in the U.S. justice system. Juries are the heart of the justice system, but that heart is weak and ravaged with a liberal case of heart disease. In many ways, juries are treated like mushrooms grown commercially in caves, because they are kept in the dark and fed manure. They are not given any information about the history of the defendant or the accuser, and the lawyers offer faulty moral arguments that play to the jurors’ emotions. Also, the jury selection process does the opposite of what it should do, generally filtering out the best candidates and selecting the worst candidates.

 I speak from personal experience in this matter. About 15 years ago, I served on a criminal jury that delivered a guilty verdict, largely from my influence. The defendant was a young black man. The crime we found him guilty of, was robbery and assault with a deadly weapon (a pistol). After he broke into a hispanic family’s house, he fired a shot through a locked bedroom door, where the family had retreated to get away from him.

 I was able to convince a key fellow juror, a black man who was a retired Army sergeant, to vote guilty. He was the only black person on the jury. He was going to vote “not guilty,” probably just to protect the young black defendant against the possible racism of we whites on the jury. He told us that he thought the young black man deserved another chance. During a break, I found him and related to him a touching story of a young black soldier under my command in the Army, whom I gave a second chance after being caught with marijuana, and who later became a fine young sergeant. We instantly bonded because of our common Army experience. I told him that a drug offense deserved a second chance, but firing a gun into a room containing a family did not deserve a second chance. The old sergeant was convinced that I was not a racist, and he changed his vote.

 Then I helped to convince a couple of other liberal-leaning female jurors. They wanted to give the young armed robber who was on trial “another chance,” because “maybe it was his first offense.” I told them it probably was not his first offense, and even if it was, it was too serious to let him go free. Then the liberal ladies were concerned about the punishment. The judge was going to decide punishment after our verdict, and the liberals did not trust the judge.  The judge “might throw the book” at this poor young black man. So even if they thought the man was guilty, they were going to vote not-guilty. But the rest of us managed to persuade the liberal ladies to vote guilty. After we delivered the guilty verdict, the prosecutor de-briefed us. He said, “I am so grateful you put this guy away. This is NOT his first offense. Here is his rap sheet.” The prosecutor held up a computer printout above his head, and it unfolded itself all the way to the floor. On it was the criminal career of the young punk, with everything from pot-smoking to vandalism to shoplifting to stealing cars. The compassion of the liberal ladies of the jury was sorely misplaced, and their judgment of this young criminal was proven completely wrong. I had to suppress the urge to stand up and say “I TOLD YOU SO, YOU IDIOTS!”  The liberal ladies of the jury had wanted to give this predator another chance. The judge sentenced him to five years in prison, which was about right in my opinion.

 I was later dismissed from a criminal jury pool because of my success on the first jury. In the jury selection for a drunk driving case, the lawyers asked if we had served on a jury, and if a guilty verdict was reached. I answered yes. The defense lawyers wanted no such outcome to be repeated, so they dismissed me. Then I was dismissed from a second criminal jury pool because I was willing to give more credibility to the testimony of a police officer than to other witnesses. I explained that a police officer is trained to be more observant, and has rich experience in the application of law to the real world, and puts his life on the line every day, so his word should be held above that of the average citizen. The defense attorney found this to be unacceptable, so I was dismissed. 

 The jury selection process is a process of elimination.  Before the trial, a large “pool” of potential jurors are lectured to and questioned by the lawyers from both sides of the trial, who then each get to dismiss the jurors they don’t like.  In my first case, the court needed 12 jurors, and was given a pool of 24 candidates.  In my second case, a DWI case, the court needed 6 jurors, and was given a pool of 18 candidates.  Each lawyer was allowed to dismiss 6 jurors.  In my third case, a child injury case, an astounding pool of 76 candidates was whittled down to 12 jurors and one alternate.  In this process of elimination, the key question is:  what is being eliminated?  The lawyers would say bias and prejudice are being eliminated.  That may or may not be true, but the process cuts much deeper than that.

Many factors are involved in the selection process.  The folks who have been called for jury duty have had their lives and their work interrupted, and most of them only want to get dismissed and get back to their jobs.  For many of them, getting selected for a long court case would be a financial disaster, because jury duty pays a whopping six dollars a day.  These people have a great moral sense of responsibility and duty to their family and to paying their bills, so there is a great incentive for those people to get dismissed from jury duty.  In the legal circus that follows, there are several ways for these hard workers to get dismissed, and most of them will take advantage of those ways.  When they are dismissed, people of great moral responsibility and sense of duty are lost.

That is just one example of one factor in play…..  One small example of how the jury selection process is deeply flawed, from a standpoint of natural moral principle, as well as common sense.  It is highly ironic…..  the jury is like a sports team that is being selected to play in an important game.  But the best players are already playing in a game that is much more important to them (their work, their family, etc.).  So, in the jury selection process, as the coaches (lawyers) are trying to select the best players for the team (jury), the best players do not want to be on the team, and do not want to play in the important game,  and are looking for ways not to be selected.  When you are in this selection process, you are both a participant and an observer of the dog and pony show that plays out.  It is funny, sad, and disgusting all at the same time.  And the stakes are high, because this is how justice happens, or does not happen, in our society.

After an amusing performance in which the lawyers question each juror about their opinions, beliefs, and background, trying to put each juror “on the spot,” the lawyers then make their choices.  The state’s lawyer dismisses those with too much compassion or no moral certainty, and the defendant’s lawyer dismisses those with too little compassion or strong moral certainty.  This invokes the saying that, “a jury is a collection of people with negotiable morals.”  Those candidates who voice strong convictions are generally dismissed.

 For example, in the child injury case, the prosecutor went to great pains to explain to us the law’s definition of “injury.”  In doing so, she made it obvious to me that there was probably no real injury involved, but that she was going to prosecute for legal “injury”.  She made it very clear that a rather insignificant amount of physical pain inflicted by one person upon another, leaving no physical bruises or marks, would still constitute “injury” under the law, as long as the victim felt some physical pain.  In this case, a man was charged with “causing injury to a child by pulling on the child’s arm.” 

 Now, I would suspect that every child in the world has been dealt some physical pain by their parents or other adults in their families, and that they probably deserved it!  Whether a stinging slap on the butt, a bop on the head, a pinch, a forceful grab of an arm, or something more inventive, a small amount of temporary physical pain is an excellent way to get a child’s attention, when they are not paying a proper respect to their parents.  This absurd law turns all types of traditional physical parental punishment into a crime, and I objected to it on these moral grounds as well as physical logic.  A small amount of temporary pain does not constitute an injury to the body.  I experience physical pain every day, whether a headache, or a blister from hard work, or a bloody scratch from a cedar tree while walking through the woods in my work, or a fall from my bicycle or motorcycle.  But I am usually not “INJURED” by these things. I learn from them, and my body quickly heals.

So, I spoke out and told the prosecutor I would not follow “the law” on this point, and 10 other folks said they would not either, after I spoke first.  The lawyers’ circus continued, and at the end of it,  I was dismissed from jury duty, along with 62 of my fellow citizens.  But before we were dismissed, in dramatic fashion, the names of the selected jurors were called one by one, and they had to walk to the jury box and sit down.  We had all seen how these people responded to the lawyers’ questions.  The 13 people who were selected as jurors and an alternate, were people who had remained silent or who had not expressed any moral convictions when asked questions by the lawyers.  They had presented themselves as “open-minded” and reluctant to make any concrete judgments.  I would call them wishy-washy, indecisive, morally weak, and easily influenced.  Again, this reinforces the saying that juries are a collection of people with “negotiable morals.”  You can be sure that this is the type of people who were on the Casey Anthony jury, and on almost every criminal jury in America.

But I prefer the other saying above, that juries are treated like mushrooms grown in caves:  the courts keep you in the dark and feed you shit.  In the robbery case, the court would not tell us the previous crimes of the hardened criminal sitting before us, dressed in a suit.  In the child injury case, the judge would not tell us that the defendant was an illegal alien, but instructed us that the issue was irrelevant to the case.  I objected that it was very relevant to me, for an illegal alien is breaking the laws of our country every day, and this fact reflects upon his or her moral character.  I happened to find out that the defendant WAS an illegal alien, from the defense lawyer after the hearing, in the elevator, after I was dismissed from the case.  The members of the jury were not told this crucial fact, nor even allowed to consider it as an issue.  But I am sure they had their suspicions, because the man spoke in Spanish, with a court-assigned interpreter who spoke to us in English. 

 In highly publicized cases, the state is forced to try to find jurors who are ignorant of the case.  So not only do we get jurors who are in general undecided, uneducated, with poor judgment skills, with little or no moral certainty— but also possibly  self-absorbed people who do not keep themselves informed of current events in their society.  This is just the opposite of the type of people we need on juries.  It is amazing that we get any guilty verdicts at all.  The fact that we do get them is another testament to the general high level of moral competence of the average person in society, despite the efforts of the justice system to filter out moral competence.

 The next errors occur in the trial itself.  Certain crucial evidence, such as phone calls or confessions, may be kept from the jury.  Even the most damning of evidence can be barred if it was obtained “improperly.”  The jury is hustled out of the courtroom while the judge argues with the lawyers.  The background of the defendant, including any previous crimes, is kept from the jury.  So they are purposely kept from being able to properly judge the moral character of the defendant.  The jury is barred from watching news coverage or talking to their families and friends about the case.  This last rule may actually be needed, given the poor quality, ignorance, and weakness of most jurors who were put into the jury box by a deeply flawed selection system.  But if jurors were of better quality, no bar of information would be necessary.

 Also during the trail, witnesses are sworn to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” but then the lawyers try to prevent witnesses from telling the whole truth, because they only want the parts of the truth that support their side.  Witnesses who try to tell the whole truth, as they swore to do, are stopped and told to simply answer the question asked to them.  I saw this happen a few times when I served on juries, and it disturbed me greatly.

 So in this deeply flawed process,  juries and witnesses alike are prevented from using the full faculties of observation, knowledge, judgment and morality that they possess.  The juries and witnesses are pawns on a chessboard, duly screened, blinded and muzzled.  The lawyers are hired guns, with selective morality that presses one moral point while ignoring many others.  The judge is a tyrant, manipulating the process as he or she likes, according to his or her beliefs, to work toward the verdict that he or she secretly desires, while maintaining a grand pretense of impartiality.  The entire court proceedings are a sham; a farce; a moral tragedy.  All these serious flaws make appeals very common, forcing another court to wade tediously through the same case again, sometimes overturning the lower judge’s decision.  All this makes governmental justice an ineffective, slow, wasteful and crippled system of jurisprudence.   

 We need a return to logic, morality and a different type of impartiality in the courtroom. I would suggest the following improvements:

 1.  Juries would be selected at random, without a large “pool” of candidates sent to each courtroom.  Twelve citizens are selected at random, and those twelve people serve on the jury, with just one or two alternates along for the ride.  Lawyers do not get to tamper with the selection of the jury.  This one step would raise the quality of the jury immensely.  It would also relieve the logistical nightmare of summoning six times as many people for jury duty as are actually needed.

2.  Give the jury members DECENT PAY,  at least as much money as they are making in their current job.  This would make them much more willing to have their lives disrupted by serving on the jury,  and it would make them much less motivated to find ways to be dismissed.

2.  In the trial, the jury would see all evidence that the judge sees, and they would be informed of the background of the defendant, including past criminal records, as well as all notable positive accomplishments.  The jury must be given complete information, so that they can use all their faculties of intelligence, reasoning, logic and moral judgment.

 3.  Witnesses would be allowed to give more complete answers to lawyers’ questions, as long as they stick to what they know, and not what they believe or suspect.  Witnesses could not be prevented from giving testimony to the whole truth as they see it.

 With the blindfold thus removed, “lady justice” would be much more effective in the use of her scales and sword.  And the heavy thumbs of the lawyers and judges would be removed from those scales, for they would now be in plain view.

Another problem that has developed with the court system is the proliferation of liberal lawyers and judges, who are enforcing their liberal faith and values upon the court system.  They are too soft on criminals, because they look for ways to relieve the criminals of personal responsibility for their crimes. This is a basic principle of flawed liberal philosophy, which discounts the incredible power of human will, and makes us all helpless victims of our childhood or culture.  Previous circumstances become all-important:  the poor rapist was abused as a child, the abused mother was under too much stress and went temporarily insane to kill her children, the thief lost his job and needed money, the murdering teenager was bullied at school or mistreated at home.  None of these circumstances should matter to a court trying to determine guilt or innocence of a crime.  Defendants should be held completely responsible for their own moral choices and their destructive actions,  regardless of the flawed reasoning that they used to justify their crimes.  Tragic accidents, even poor judgments may be excusable, but deliberate criminal actions are not excusable.

 Liberals do not see it this way.  To them, everything is excusable, and everyone is a victim of something.  In murder cases, every effort is made to find ways to sway the jury to excuse the murderer or win light punishment.  Casey Anthony’s lawyers tried to accuse her father and brother of raping her.  They tried to paint her family as highly dysfunctional.  Even if true, these things are no excuse for Casey’s own acts of lying, criminal negligence, child abuse, or murder.

 The murderer’s life is portrayed as something worth preserving or considering, which is a travesty of justice in itself.  The snuffed-out lives of the murdered victims are discounted, dishonored, and virtually forgotten by all but their families.  If the victims could be resurrected in court as witnesses to speak of their pain, their horror, their desperate fear when murdered, their lost years of life, their lost potential, their lost earnings, their lost relationships, which were all snuffed out by the murderer’s dark fit of selfish depravity, then no convicted murderer would escape the death penalty.  By committing the act of unjustified killing of another human, the murderer has declared himself the enemy of society and civilization.  He has rendered his life worthless to society.  The victims he slaughtered were morally superior to him and much more valuable than he, and society owes nothing to the murderer.  But the murderer owes a life to society.  There exists the ultimate moral debt to be paid.  The convicted murderer has become a moral traitor to his own species.  He or she is worse than an animal gone mad, and should be put to death in every case.  That is, assuming that the court system is improved to the point that innocent people are never convicted of murder.  Above, I already made suggestions that would work toward that end.

 I recently came across evidence that God might support my view of justice, especially in the punishment of murderers.  I speculate on this because of the Bible verses in Genesis 9:5-7. God is speaking to Noah, after the great Flood, about how people are to conduct their lives, as they re-populate the Earth.  As the story goes, God had just killed millions with a flood, because they had become too evil.  The vast majority of humanity was genetically and morally corrupted, beyond saving.  The details of this corrupting are a mystery, with some intriguing clues.  Possibly murder had become commonplace, and murderers roamed and killed freely, with no organized resistance against them, because murderers had taken over society.  But to prevent this corrupting from happening again, God gives a stern command after the flood.  In Genesis 9:5-7, God says “…At the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man.  Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed:  for in the image of God he made man.”  This tells us that when a human has become so evil that he or she becomes a murderer, unjustly taking the life of another precious human, made in the image of God, then the murderer is to be killed also.  This tells us that once a human has become a murderer, there is no real way to reform the murderer in this life, and he or she deserves only death, for he or she is already dead to God and goodness.  The secular or atheist authorities, who are entrenched in our academic and legal institutions, would consider this argument to be a barbaric fantasy, based on the fairy tale of religion.  But they follow an atheistic fairy tale of their own, even more irrational, that rejects all things metaphysical or spiritual.

The command of Genesis 9:5-7 is not just a simplistic, barbaric policy of eye-for-eye, tooth-for-tooth, life-for-life. It is silent about all crimes short of murder (murder being signified by the shedding of blood). It is a recognition of a moral and spiritual truth: that murder kills not only another human being unjustly, but also deeply damages one’s own soul. If the murderer’s soul can be reformed, it will not be in this life. Those humans who carry out the death sentence are not murderers, but are carrying out the command of God and the will of society, after a trial, with heavy hearts for the lost soul. If we are certain of the murderer’s guilt, then he or she should be put to death.

 Such certainty will probably never be achieved, so categories of convictions would have to be made.  Those convicted of murder on circumstantial or indirect evidence could be imprisoned, so that appeals could go forward.  But those convicted of murder on direct evidence, such as video, fingerprints, DNA or confession should be executed immediately, with no appeal allowed.  Their death pays their debt to society and God, eliminates them as a future threat to society, saves a great deal of money, and serves as a powerful deterrent.  Liberal lawyers and judges prevent this from happening, and they are doing great damage to our society.  The only thing they are serving is their own false philosophy, which is in the process of ruining this country.

If anyone else has jury experiences or court cases they would like to share, I would love to hear them.  Give us a comment!

I will close with dueling quotes:

– – – – – The mind is like a parachute- – it only works when it is open – – – – –

– – – – –  Keep an open mind, but don’t let your common sense fall out   – – – – –



About goldenmeantx
Truth seeker, fact finder, amateur philosopher, amateur historian, ex-soldier, ex-motorcycle racer, world traveler, rancher, hunter, gun owner, dirt bike rider, mountain bicycle rider, husband, father, grandfather, hard worker, good friend to all who put up with me, and even some who don't.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: