The Casey Anthony trial and the desire to punish

The Casey Anthony trial attracted major media attention. In the NPR piece, New Republic: Beyond Whose Reasonable Doubt?, University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos discusses belief in the system and how high profile trials like Anthony's figure into that belief. He says that we must decide what constitutes reasonable doubt and render judgment while adhering to the belief that "mistaken acquittals are vastly preferable to wrongful convictions". The price of this jurisprudence of prudent judgement, however, may lead to "deeply disturbing" verdicts, as in the Anthony case, where the defendant likely "has gotten away with murder", thereby challenging our belief in the system. He's counseling us. And with good reason.

Indeed, I think one function of high-profile trials such as this is to show that the system "works". The media inadvertently and advertently promotes the status quo, which requires a measure of belief in the judicial system. So, the pundits screamed when the verdict was read because they think the system should have rendered a guilty verdict. That an injustice has been done may be one reason for the vigor and volume of their response, but I would suggest another reason is at play here, too.

Casey Anthony's behavior defies our expectations of what young mothers are supposed to look like and act like. Pundits wanted to punish the mother not so much for killing her child as for the way she behaved after the death. What constituted evidence also constituted her crimes: Getting the tattoo and going to night clubs.

The concept of a mother who does not cherish her child challenges the ideal of the self-policing individual and the centralized interest in the protection and regulation of life. Media figures apparently salivated in agreement at the prospect of punishing Anthony, building a consensus among the public that the young woman was guilty and deserved punishment.