Yes, you are being irrational.
Look, I know you're pissed about the verdict--so am I, so are about a zillion other people--but this is nothing more than a difference of opinion, and it has nothing to do with character. You and I might be convinced that Casey Anthony is guilty, but obviously your boyfriend didn't hear enough evidence to convince him. He's not alone--12 jurors had the same opinion.
We all see things differently. Often we can't believe that others can't see what is completely obvious to us, but they can't. That doesn't make them bad people. We all bring different eyes and minds and biases to every situation that inform our perspective, and that's a good thing. Without it, the world would be a very boring place.
You have your reasons to think that Ms. Anthony is guilty, and your guy must have his reasons for thinking otherwise. We will probably never know the truth, so I suggest you just agree to disagree with him, and leave moral judgments out of it.
Thanks for the question.
Not proving the case for a guilty verdict is one thing, but if he thinks she is innocent!? That's worrying...
Hopefully it's because he knows nothing at all about the case.
Agreed. Even a jury member said that s/he doesn't think Casey's "innocent", just that there wasn't enough evidence to fully prove her guilty.
I'm a skeptic and one who fully believes in giving people the benefit of the doubt. However, following the case, I myself have absolutely no doubt that she played a role in her daughter's murder (though not necessarily murdered her herself).
It wasn't that she wasn't innocent or even that her defense was good. The prosecution simply failed to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Being in law enforcement I can understand how people could have doubts about the Anthony case. I do not believe it is a negative sign towards their personality, just a personal belief. Many people also take the formal verdict as a sign of guilt or innocence, somewhat naive I admit as the justice system is most assuredly flawed, but that is just a belief.
On another note, they are finding more and more (especially in the United States) that there are wrongly convicted people in correctional facilities. People who were afforded a trial by jury (or not) and found guilty when, in fact, they were not. Some people have spent 20-30 years in jail for crimes they never committed. In some states people have been killed for crimes they never committed. Many of those cases had far more compelling evidence than the Anthony case does hence, Reasonable Doubt.
Just remember that people do some crazy stuff when in shock. People have been known to get amnesia, even multiple personality disorder in order to deal with the trauma, and it is not our job to convict or to judge another person. That is the justice systems job. I am a Police Officer but my job ends once the offender is in a cell. I testify in court but I have no right to judge someone (Until Judge Dredd becomes a reality, then watch out!). Also, please remember that we have all seen the case become sensationalized in the news and on the radio, pushing us towards thinking she is guilty. The jurors were kept separate from all of that and found her to be innocent. News wants ratings, nothing more, nothing less. Take everything you see on the news with a grain of salt.
What a refreshing comment. I didn't really follow the trial on TV, but I read the New York Times article on it after the verdict was passed. Just from that, it didn't seem like there was enough evidence to find her guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". There were lots of reasonable doubts. The media totally exaggerated things. Some of my friends are outraged from the result of the trial, and I'm just like, "Caaaalm dooowwwn".
"'Caaaalm dooowwwn'."
Yeah, it's not like we're talking about child murder here, people. Good grief. Amirite?
Most people think innocent and not guilty have the same meaning, just remember that if you discuss it again...