Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Double Jeopardy?

It was just announced that an internet search was conducted by Casey Anthony on “foolproof suffocation” on the day her daughter Caylee was allegedly kidnapped by her nanny.  But little Caylee was never kidnapped.  Her body was found six months later in a swamp; duct tape haphazardly placed over her nose and mouth, wrapped around her little head entangling in her hair, according to forensics.  All evidence pointed toward a premeditated murder by her mother. 

Surprisingly the internet search for “foolproof suffocation” was never revealed at the trial.  Somehow, the ball was dropped, allowing Casey Anthony to walk away free of punishment, free of maternal responsibility, and free to live the “beautiful life” she craved so desperately, even tattooing those words in beautifully scripted Italian, on her shoulder during the time her beautiful toddler was wrapped in a garbage bag in a swamp.  Nevertheless, Casey Anthony gained her freedom with a finding of “not guilty”, as well as the right to live her “beautiful life” instead of a lifetime in prison for premeditated murder.  Regardless of this new evidence, Casey Anthony cannot be retried for the murder of her daughter Caylee.  Even if she confessed, she would remain free, as the law states that an individual cannot be tried fro the same crime twice.  It’s called “double jeopardy”.  

It makes me wonder why probate courts are far more lenient in their judgments.  Why would judges accept a motion (a request) that had previously been denied, and “retry” it more than once?  Doesn’t this go against the law of double jeopardy?  And if a judge already ruled on a motion, why would another judge go against that ruling?  Aren’t all judges required to follow the same rules?  Why are judges making decisions that supersede previous judge’s decisions?  These are men and women who call themselves “family judges” yet can be swayed, convinced, bought, or freely show apathy in custody cases, and possibly destroy the family unit. 

Casey Anthony has been exonerated of murder and does not have to worry about another trial.  Yet mothers who have started a new life with their children after leaving their abuser have been dragged back into court on a repeated motion and then lose custody.  Baffling! Why aren’t the same rules applicable in probate court?  Is it because there are too many individuals seeking help so it’s difficult to keep accurate records?  Perhaps a judge may not have the desire to wade through huge piles of documents, or check if the motion has been already presented.  Another reason for repeated motions can be blamed on unethical attorneys who go “judge shopping.”  She files the same motion numerous times in the hopes of getting in front of a new judge in order to get a different answer to her motion.  Attorneys who utilize this tactics are usually hired by batterers, contrary to men who would rather maintain stability in the lives of their children despite a divorce.  To note**Abusive men attempt to get custody more than non-abusers.  It’s a way to maintain control and to punish.  The success rates of the abusers are astonishing – sometimes reaching 90% of the cases.  And these legal victories are without merit.    

Little Caylee Anthony remains an innocent murder victim who will never get justice.  In comparison, the innocent children of acrimonious divorces never experience justice either.  They may be alive, but they are robbed of maternal love.  (This can also be applicable in cases where fathers are victims and denied their children). Why should a mother who murdered her two year old be allowed to walk free?  Why should a mother, victimized by an abusive ex, the judges and an unethical attorney, never walk free, always carrying the weight of  a heart heavy with loss?  

No comments:

Post a Comment