The world is abuzz with today's acquittal of Casey Anthony, accused of murdering her two-year old daughter Cayley. I hadn't followed the case closely until this weekend, when circumstances resulted in a an unavoidable exposure to a barrage of closing arguments from both sides. When word broke that the jury was bringing back a verdict today, I couldn't help but pay attention. Then, when the not-guilty bomb dropped, I was drawn to social media like Twitter and Facebook to follow the reaction. I've been a bit stunned at the racial twist that seems to be developing in the responses - a popular post points to the discreprancy between this verdict and the conviction of Michael Vick for animal abuse. Other posts suggest that if Casey Anthony's first name were of a more ethnic nature, the outcome would have been different. I've even seen a few people making reference to Rosa Parks and Nelson Mandela. Really?
The most common racially-driven comparison seems to revolve around the "We got OJ, you got Casey." theme. I don't really get it. I don't see where race enters the picture (although I do think it may play a role in the aftermath - Casey Anthony as a reality TV star?) What I do find most interesting, though, also involves a comparison between the infamous 1995 O.J. Simpson trial and the current media circus. Among the most disheartening aspects of the Simpson trail (and there were many) was the degree to which the defense team was able to convince jurors that the tremendous weight of the scientific evidence could be disregarded as unreliable or misleading. I saw the Simpson case, in many ways, as a rejection of science.
My limited knowledge of the Anthony case suggests to me that, this time around, the opposite is true. While circumstances seem to point toward this young mother as the likely killer of her child, the LACK of convincing scientific evidence is apparently the major reason that she's being set free. That, in some sad, sad way, seems like a victory.
No comments:
Post a Comment