Tuesday, July 05, 2011

The One Thing I Don't Understand About the Casey Anthony Case

Well of course people are outraged that Casey Anthony was found not guilty of murder. For some people, the murder and abuse and neglect of a 2-year-old child is an immediately polarizing thing. and those people are upset that the girl's possible murderer is going free. I don't blame them; some corners of the media have been pushing the story so hard that it grabbed the attention of a lot of people. I get it.

What I don't get, though, are the sheer number of comments I've seen online so far this afternoon (23 and counting) that are basically in the vein of "Who cares?" or "This doesn't affect me" or "I'm not interested" or "I don't understand why people are so captivated and outraged by this."

Are we really at this point now? Where people take their opinions so seriously that they've got to rush online to comment about how they don't care about what other people are commenting about? I mean, wouldn't you just, like, ignore it instead? If you really didn't care, wouldn't you just keep on... not caring?

And I get that you don't care, I just wonder why I'm supposed to care that you don't care.

And yes, I recognize the irony inherent in my getting on the internet to state my opinion that people take their opinions too seriously. I understand that I'm basically doing what I'm accusing other people of, and I also understand that all blogs really are is people talking about their opinions.

But still... look, people are upset about the murder or manslaughter of a child. I don't think that's unreasonable. If you don't share in the anger, why bother even mentioning it?

Unless you're taking the extreme opposite position and arguing that it's okay for parents to murder their kids, what is it you're adding or countering?

UPDATE 5:51 PM: The one person I've seen so far who actually had something to contribute with his not caring about Casey Anthony.

UPDATE 9:53 PM: Jon Stewart tonight: "Casey Anthony was found not guilty of murdering her daughter, as the American public stands by in shock and awe. In other news, millions of sick and dying American children and adults still don’t have healthcare, to the shock and awe of absolutely nobody."

Again, a real point to make instead of just "Eh, who cares?"


Roger Owen Green said...

I tend to agree with your update link.

That said, my great takeaway from this trial is that Americans don't know jack squat about jurisprudence. Anyone who ever watched Law & Order or Perry Mason should know 'not guilty' doesn't mean 'innocent'.

Oh, and she can't be tried again with a new jury, a Twitter favorite comment - double jeopardy. Her father could sue her for defamation of character, though.

jaundicedi said...

From my experience talking to other prospective jurors the prevailing attitude among the average American is "If he wasn't guilty they wouldn't have arrested him." (I wish I was kidding) To not have convicted on any of the major counts one of two things had to have happened: Either A) the prosecutor was such a smug jerk that he totally alienated the jury, or B) He had no case. I suppose it is barely possible that Nancy Grace totally pissed everyone off and contaminated the jury pool beyond repair. If that's the case I hope the jury goes public and it ruins that harpy.

Splotchy said...

I like this too. Bells On