The ACLU and some other atheist group are trying to stop Governor Rick Perry from speaking at a call to prayer planned at Reliant Stadium.
I'm no fan of Perry and am more offended (sarcasm alert) that the religious group will defile my place of worship by holding their Day of Prayer at Reliant Stadium. Reliant is my sanctuary as well as Cathedral of the Texans. I don't want other religions using my temple.
On a more serious note, I don't see where the ACLU and atheists have any standing in this case. Perry attending, or even speaking, is not a violation of church and state. Just because Perry hold office it doesn't preclude him from taking part in a public religious ceremony. Even if he endorses religion in front of thousands, it will be as an individual and not as the government.
Even if people want to argue that the a public financed facility used for a religious ceremony violates church and state separation, I don't see that valid either. How many public venues have hosted a Billy Graham crusade?
While I'm a strong advocate of separation of church and state, I don't see this as a violation of that doctrine. Perry's opponents would do better attacking his real weaknesses instead of going after something as Mickey Mouse as this.
Instead I'd love to hear what Governor Good Hair has to say and then use it against him if I can.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Sunday, July 10, 2011
The Casey Anthony Verdict
I'll be the first to admit I wasn't shocked the day the not guilty verdict was announced. That morning I was listening to lawyer on CNN or Fox News comment on the verdict before the announcement. I took it that he either watched the trial or was well versed in it. His words foreshadowed the verdict. He basically stated that he could see how jury could not convict Casey Anthony. He stated that the prosecution left many holes in the case.
The more I thought about it the more curious I got. The verdict came down from the jury and I wasn't surprised by the not guilty verdict.
There seems to be considerable misunderstanding of what a not guilty verdict means to the general public. To obtain a conviction, a prosecutor must prove guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." Beyond a reasonable doubt is a high standard to meet. Unfortunately there is no clear cut definition to the idea. Basically, if a juror has a doubt that most reasonable people would have, then he is to vote not guilty.
The general public also confuses not guilty with innocence. All not guilty means is that the prosecution failed to prove the case.
So where did the Casey Anthony go wrong? From what I read, the first issue is they didn't show how Caylee Anthony died. We know the unfortunate child died. We don't know the cause of death. The prosecution implied that duct tape was placed over Caylee's mouth and nose to suffocate her to death. No DNA, skin or hair samples were found on the duct tape.
Alternate juror Russell Huekler spoke first to the media. He basically said that prosecution didn't prove the case by not showing cause of death, motive and evidence to show murder or manslaughter. Asked if he thought she was innocent or the case not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, he stated the case was not proven.
The case was a circumstantial case. That in itself is not fatal. A circumstantial case has no direct evidence but instead has a set of circumstantial evidence and a chain of scenarios that tries to prove a case. To build a strong circumstantial case, the chain reaction of evidence needs to connect clear and strong. Any weakness in the circumstantial chain and the whole case could come down.
Huekler's interview gives good insight on what went on in the jury room. They could find no strong indication of how Caylee died. There was reasonable doubt about manner of death. No one knows for sure. Take the method of death out of the equation and the foundation of the circumstantial case starts to crumble. If there is reasonable doubt about the death, there is probably no way they could make the leap to murder.
It also looks like the prosecution tried to play on the emotions of the jurors. A dead little girl, a dysfunctional family and a party girl mom. He tried to tug on the heart strings. In the end, the ploy failed. It wasn't enough to overcome the lack of evidence.
Based on reports and statements by a juror and alternate juror, I feel the jury reached the right verdict. The jury did an outstanding job regardless of the verdict. They put emotions aside and looked at the evidence or lack of evidence to reach a verdict.
The more I thought about it the more curious I got. The verdict came down from the jury and I wasn't surprised by the not guilty verdict.
There seems to be considerable misunderstanding of what a not guilty verdict means to the general public. To obtain a conviction, a prosecutor must prove guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." Beyond a reasonable doubt is a high standard to meet. Unfortunately there is no clear cut definition to the idea. Basically, if a juror has a doubt that most reasonable people would have, then he is to vote not guilty.
The general public also confuses not guilty with innocence. All not guilty means is that the prosecution failed to prove the case.
So where did the Casey Anthony go wrong? From what I read, the first issue is they didn't show how Caylee Anthony died. We know the unfortunate child died. We don't know the cause of death. The prosecution implied that duct tape was placed over Caylee's mouth and nose to suffocate her to death. No DNA, skin or hair samples were found on the duct tape.
Alternate juror Russell Huekler spoke first to the media. He basically said that prosecution didn't prove the case by not showing cause of death, motive and evidence to show murder or manslaughter. Asked if he thought she was innocent or the case not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, he stated the case was not proven.
The case was a circumstantial case. That in itself is not fatal. A circumstantial case has no direct evidence but instead has a set of circumstantial evidence and a chain of scenarios that tries to prove a case. To build a strong circumstantial case, the chain reaction of evidence needs to connect clear and strong. Any weakness in the circumstantial chain and the whole case could come down.
Huekler's interview gives good insight on what went on in the jury room. They could find no strong indication of how Caylee died. There was reasonable doubt about manner of death. No one knows for sure. Take the method of death out of the equation and the foundation of the circumstantial case starts to crumble. If there is reasonable doubt about the death, there is probably no way they could make the leap to murder.
It also looks like the prosecution tried to play on the emotions of the jurors. A dead little girl, a dysfunctional family and a party girl mom. He tried to tug on the heart strings. In the end, the ploy failed. It wasn't enough to overcome the lack of evidence.
Based on reports and statements by a juror and alternate juror, I feel the jury reached the right verdict. The jury did an outstanding job regardless of the verdict. They put emotions aside and looked at the evidence or lack of evidence to reach a verdict.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
