Should Casey Anthony Pay $500,000 Investigation Bill?

sara1981

sara1981

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
7,870
Reaction score
71
Should Casey Anthony Pay $500,000 Investigation Bill?
Casey Anthony Case: Judge Considers Whether She Should Pay for Investigation : People.com

Authorities in Florida say they ran up $517,000 in costs investigating the death of 2-year-old Caylee Anthony, and a judge is weighing whether Casey Anthony should pay for all or some of it.

Anthony was acquitted of murder but convicted of lying to police during the investigation which authorities say drained money and manpower.

Anthony, 25, did not attend a hearing Friday on the investigative tab.

She is in a secret location serving her probation in a Florida check fraud case.
Click to expand...
 
She was acquitted....but...if it were me, I'd stick the B*%#@" will the bill!
 
Yes ,she lied about where her daughter was and money and manpower was wasted because of that! The balloon man should have to pay back the money spend going after a balloon he said his son was trapped in , when the son was hiding all the time!
 
again on debate I know posts waste of time rusomr they serious very lots of money!
 
Yes she was found not guilty on the murder charge; but according to Casey they knew Caylee was already gone early in the investigation (I forget exact date). She "drowned in the pool." She willingly and intentionally obstructed justice, and cost the tax payers obscene amounts of money erroneously. She should foot the bill.
 
Because the concept of precedence governs U. S. law "slippery slope" reasoning should be considered a standard rather than a fallacy.

So in the future someone calls the police saying they saw a man in the backyard.

Turns out it may have been a shadow from across the street -- But the person did lie to the police and cost the city $3,287.36 to investigate.

I am leery of getting anything started if I have no clue where it might end.

You might say "This could never happen," and you may be right -- But since 9/11 we do many things people thought would never happen -- Including a law against lying to the police.
 
Berry said:
Because the concept of precedence governs U. S. law "slippery slope" reasoning should be considered a standard rather than a fallacy.

So in the future someone calls the police saying they saw a man in the backyard.

Turns out it may have been a shadow from across the street -- But the person did lie to the police and cost the city $3,287.36 to investigate.

I am leery of getting anything started if I have no clue where it might end.

You might say "This could never happen," and you may be right -- But since 9/11 we do many things people thought would never happen -- Including a law against lying to the police.
Click to expand...

Would obstructing justice be a factor here?....Giving "false" information to the police?....
 
hell no! She was NOT convicted of lying and she should NOT pay for those investigation.

Imagine if they come to you, "You must pay $100,000 even though you're not guilty" by the prosecutor!
 
CSign said:
Yes she was found not guilty on the murder charge; but according to Casey they knew Caylee was already gone early in the investigation (I forget exact date). She "drowned in the pool." She willingly and intentionally obstructed justice, and cost the tax payers obscene amounts of money erroneously. She should foot the bill.
Click to expand...

That would start a really bad precedent for all people deemed innocent by the court. It's best to keep that door shut.
 
CSign said:
Yes she was found not guilty on the murder charge; but according to Casey they knew Caylee was already gone early in the investigation (I forget exact date). She "drowned in the pool." She willingly and intentionally obstructed justice, and cost the tax payers obscene amounts of money erroneously. She should foot the bill.
Click to expand...

She was NOT found not guilty. She was only acquitted. They did not have enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but she was not not guilty. Personally, I think she ought to have to pay for all the investigative fees, and all attorney fees and everything. She also ought to pay for her time in jail. You know, for all her meals and water and costs like that.
 
rockin'robin said:
Would obstructing justice be a factor here?....Giving "false" information to the police?....
Click to expand...

Fine lines. Here we are dealing with an extreme case. Not all cases are. However once written the law tends to disregard the difference between an extreme case and a mild case.

In the past it was not considered a crime to lie to the police. It was pretty much taken for granted everyone did. If you were not under oath you were not obligated to tell the truth to anyone.

So maybe a crime happened, in your home or outside, and you do not really want to tell the police your mother was in the house at the time and the two of you were talking about something very personal. You don't want anyone except your mother to know what you were discussing.

Now you have a choice:

Give information you feel is personal.

Lie to the police.

Withhold information.

Tell the police it is none of their business.

Hire a lawyer.

Good luck. Pretty much every choice makes you a loser!
 
cdmeggers said:
she should pay.
Click to expand...

Actually she should have been convicted.

Problem is (As I understand it) the jury was not allowed to hear or see much of the evidence you had access to on TV. The jury was only allowed to reach a judgement based on the testimony they were allowed access too.

It is quite possible we need to change the rules of evidence in order for a jury to reach an accurate decision based on all the facts.
 
Berry said:
Because the concept of precedence governs U. S. law "slippery slope" reasoning should be considered a standard rather than a fallacy.

So in the future someone calls the police saying they saw a man in the backyard.

Turns out it may have been a shadow from across the street -- But the person did lie to the police and cost the city $3,287.36 to investigate.

I am leery of getting anything started if I have no clue where it might end.

You might say "This could never happen," and you may be right -- But since 9/11 we do many things people thought would never happen -- Including a law against lying to the police.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Why should this apply to Casey Anthony alone? Because many don't like her based on the crime she was acquitted of? Personal dislike is not a feature that should enter into our justice system.
 
After the hysteria of the Salem witch hunts all the convicted and accused witches who had not been executed were pardoned.

That sounds pretty good except that they were in jail. Innocent, guilty, pardoned, regardless they had to -- By law -- Pay for their time in jail before they could be released.

As most of them had had their properties confiscated neither they nor their relatives could afford to pay -- Oh, and each day they failed to raise the money raised the price because they owed one more day.

One of the few who was able to be freed from jail was a slave girl who, of course, was sold to pay for the time she had spent in there.

Something ironic about that.
 
KristinaB said:
She was NOT found not guilty. She was only acquitted. They did not have enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but she was not not guilty. Personally, I think she ought to have to pay for all the investigative fees, and all attorney fees and everything. She also ought to pay for her time in jail. You know, for all her meals and water and costs like that.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Not guilty and acquitted are two very different legal findings, but people seem to confuse them all the time.:roll:
 
Berry said:
After the hysteria of the Salem witch hunts all the convicted and accused witches who had not been executed were pardoned.

That sounds pretty good except that they were in jail. Innocent, guilty, pardoned, regardless they had to -- By law -- Pay for their time in jail before they could be released.

As most of them had had their properties confiscated neither they nor their relatives could afford to pay -- Oh, and each day they failed to raise the money raised the price because they owed one more day.

One of the few who was able to be freed from jail was a slave girl who, of course, was sold to pay for the time she had spent in there.

Something ironic about that.
Click to expand...

And the Anthony case has most definately turned into a modern day, media inspired witch hunt. Sad that people actually permit themselves to be manipulated into that kind of frenzy.
 
Back
Top