Casey Anthony is an American woman born in 1986 in George and Cindy Anthony’s family in Ohio, Florida. She became a mother of Caylee Anthony in 2005. The death of her daughter brought her to the spotlight with the public questioning. She was the only suspect in the case of Caylee’s death, which occurred in 2008. The crime investigated in this case was first-degree murder. The mother, Casey Anthony, was suspected of killing her own daughter, Caylee Anthony. According to reports, Casey’s daughter went missing, but she did not inform the authorities, which means that she knew the whereabouts of her daughter. She abandoned her car, which she allegedly used to carry the dead body of her daughter to the place where she dumped it. Investigators found the body in a wooded area that near the family’s house after a long period of endless searching. Casey, possibly, murdered her two-year-old daughter in order to free herself from any parental responsibilities using chloroform and duct tape. According to the law, when one is convicted of first degree murder depending on the evidence provided, he/she faces trial. If the person is found guilty of the murder, he/she faces a verdict which determines its destiny. In some cases, murder results in life sentence and death penalties (Sanders 1).
In Casey Anthony’s case of suspected murder, the investigation process involved questioning of close friends and family. In addition to this, investigators searched the properties of the accused such as computer and car to find any piece of evidence that would give the investigation a different direction. They continually visited the places the accused visited during and before the investigation process, and provided constant officers in charge of continuous investigations in case any new evidence would be identified. While these techniques of investigation misled the investigators on several occasions due to false information that Casey Anthony gave to obstruct the investigation process, they still were able to gather fundamental information that guided them towards identifying possible solutions to investigation problems such as finding the real cause and venue of Caylee’s death. First, investigators found the remains of a human body, which when medically tested matched the DNA of the missing child. Apart from this, information about Casey’s attitude and character gathered from her close friends and family clearly showed how irresponsible she was regarding her daughter. Instead ofspending time with her daughter to ensure she was a good mother, she opted to spend time away from home with friends at parties (Sanders 1).
During questioning of friends and family, investigators gathered information about Casey’s behavior towards her child. To some friends she never mentioned the whereabouts of her daughter, while to other she lied that her daughter was under the care of her nanny who did not exist. During searching of Casey’s properties, investigators found evidence in her computer about the methods she used to kill her daughter and proof in her car that she was the last person to be with her daughter. During their visits to places where the accused visited before and during the case, they found information that criminated Casey to the crimes, for example, she lied about working in a studio while all the while she was hiding out with friends and was sexually involved with rich older men. Through this, investigators were able to prove that she wanted to be free of her responsibilities so she could live her irresponsible lifestyle without accountability (Cloud 1-2).
While the investigation process was time consuming and helped investigators gather the right information that possibly gave the case directions, it was not enough to incriminate the accused in terms of providing solid evidence for the case. For this reason, the outcome of the investigation was questionable to the public. It is because the verdict of the jury encourages other young women to engage in irresponsible behaviors that diminish moral standards in the society. The accused was found not guilty of murder because there was no solid evidence to prove that she really killed her daughter and dumped her body at the wooded area. In addition to this, there was no evidence of the accused ever purchasing the substance of murder found in her computer in any local stores. In my opinion, the investigation process may have provided wrong evidence because of the negative behavior and character of the accused. It means that her behavior incriminated her more that the evidence identified, which caused the investigation team to focus on the accused and not being open minded to other possible causes of death. For example, the child could have drowned in the family pool but investigators ignored the possibility of this because Casey’s behavior had provided possible reasons as the cause of her daughter’s death (Cloud 1-2).
Apart from this, friends and family of the aaccused were willing to cover up for her actions that could have granted potential evidence or direction to the investigation. For example, the parents and friends of the accused claim that they have searched for use and process of making the murdering substance found in the computer of the accused. It does not entirely give a clear direction on who really wanted to use the substance and for what reasons. For this reason, it would have been more convenient for the investigators to use other means such as counseling the accused in terms of getting her to confess her actions and the true cause of death by monitoring her behavioral patterns. It does not only change the behavior of the person but also her future. It is because through counseling, she gets to identify her mistakes without punishment hence developing pure motives of doing what she does and confessing her previous unacceptable actions. Death penalty on the other hand would have been effective if the public cared to consider it a way of stopping criminal acts. While a massive number would claim the absence of death penalty in their legal system, the crime rate continues to go higher for countries that still practice death penalty. However, there is not enough statistical data to prove that death penalty has been effective in terms of preventing criminal acts. It means that it is impossible to predict how many murders would have been prevented or how many cases of murder would e properly investigated with death penalty as a recommended means of punishment for murder cases (Signorelli 110-111).
Top 10 writer 10.95 USD Get
VIP Support 9.99 USD Get order Proofread
by editor 2.40 USD Get extended
Revision 2.00 USD Get SMS
Notifications 3.00 USD Get additional
Plagiarism Check 3.00 USD
In conclusion, those who support or cover criminal acts should understand the consequences of their actions and be open to change about introducing other effective ways of punishing criminal acts. The injustice inherent during trial portrays discriminatory aspects in murder cases. It is because one is more likely to face persecution or even death penalty when the criminal is poor than when the criminal is rich through the pattern of releasing criminals on bail. In most countries, the number of rich people who have do not face trial unjustly is probably counted on one hand. Likewise, the number of poor people who have faced trial unjustly cannot be counted to give the exact approximation. It means that most legal fraternities lack competent attorneys who will be public defenders for the poor and fairly incriminate the guilty criminals regardless of their financial status. This way, criminal acts can be reduced in the society through justice that will be served to all people.