So like everyone has been doing, we’ve been hearing about this crazed chick Casey Anthony being on trial with the death of her two-year-old child.

Now I thought there wasn’t enough evidence to get her with 1st degree murder, but I thought she deserved more than four-counts of lying to the police with the majority of that being time-served.  Which I understand from the law standpoint about it, but come on man she deserved more than a week or two in jail that she’s ultimately received after this.  There has to be some loop-hole in these laws to take advantage of.

The plaintiffs had some evidence to get her with something higher than lying to police, but from what it sounds like they didn’t have the persuasion skills to convince the jury or the judge otherwise.  So my un-law/un-political science educated guess is that the defense took advantage of the lax tactic by the other side.  It seemed like a he said/she said with some minor science/forensics tossed in there.

Now what tee’s me off a bit is our media outlets on this.  Instead of focusing on more on the case itself, there focusing more on opinion.  For example, look at Nancy Grace, a prosecutor in her day, a good one from what I’ve heard; she’s more concern on opinion.  Her opinion being that the jury is “cooky” and throwing everyone besides the plaintiffs said of the case under the bus.  And she freaks out when someone would mean that the prosecution was too lax in their approach of “We got this”.  I understand by standing by your brother n, but why should we care heavily about what your opinion is?  Now if she would tie her opinion in with something with the case that’s understandable, but it wasn’t there.

Our media is a “guilt-first, ask questions later” mentality.  Barry Bonds and unknowingly using steroids, Napster and their music mishap in 2000, and the Facebook incident.  Why are we in this groove?  Who knows.

Like I said above, the Anthony chick did deserved a harsher guilt-factor from the jury.  But, even though they did argue for a harsher sentence during their 10+ hour deliberation, I do understand their approach of not having the belief as everyone else with all of the evidence they’ve heard and had interpreted in their own ways.  I would’ve probably would thought over the evidence differently than the guy next to me.

Why should you care about my opinion?  You shouldn’t.  I figure that since our main media outlets will torture you to death about how, “I’m right and the jurors and the judge are wrong” mentality I thought that an average citizen should voice their opinion on it.