View Single Post
  #105 (permalink)  
Old July 12th, 2011, 06:01 PM
Rev22:17 Rev22:17 is offline
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,772
Default

ruthlessboss,

Quote:
Originally Posted by You View Post
I understood we are NOT responsible to protect her. Once out of jail, she's on her own to figure things out. I imagine there will be someone watching over her a while, but it will be kept a secret so the public won't get enraged over "our" money being spent on this acquittal. She made her bed and holds the key to the answers, we all, including the judge know it. Why should we protect her?
When Casey leaves the jail, the state bears the same responsibility to protect her that it bears to protect every free person wihtin its borders. This encompasses not only maintaining routine police presence and patrols, but also taking whatever additional measures may be necessary to deal with any specific threat that may be known or foreseeable. If somebody sends death threats to you by mail or leaves them on your telephone's answering system, for example, the police will investigate those threats and do whatever seems necessary to protect you until the threat has passed. Note that this is a matter of <i> basic human right </i> that has nothing whatsoever to do with one's standing as a citizen of the state or one's criminal history. As far as the police are concerned, Casey will be a free person, entitled to the same protection as anybody else, when she walks out of jail.

A couple years ago, I attended the annual shareholders' meeting of a major international corporation that has been successful in thwarting efforts by various unions to organize the company's workers. The company's chairman and CEO was constantly barraged by death threats from union operatives. At the entrance to the meeting, there were deputy sheriffs with metal detectors screening everybody (in the same manner as at airport security checkpoints). When I expressed my surprise to one of the company's Investor Relations agents, she explained the situation and went on to say that deputies were also guarding his hme and his family, and went on to describe the precautions that they took related to his vehicle (parked in a secured area guarded by deputies with surveillance cameras monitored by deputies, and one of the deputies would inspect the underside of his car, then start his car and drive it to the exit where he left the building, when he prepared to leave the office at the end of each workday). This may seem exceptional, but the threats made it necessary.

Getting back to the Casey Anthony case, the issues are two-fold.

>> 1. There are specific threats, even death threats, directed at the defendant, her parents, the jurors, the attorneys, and possibly others involved in the proceeding. The police have an obligation to provide heightened protection for those individuals until they have reasonable confidence that the specific threats have passed.

>> 2. Restrictions on the defendant, such as a prohibition on leaving the state as a condition of probation, may severely impair her ability to evade specific threats directed against her. If the courts refuse to mitigate such restrictions, the state bears an additional degree of repsonsibility because she cannot evade the danger.

My guess is that the police will support anything and everything that will get those involved out of harm's way, and that includes lifting any restriction on leaving the state to which Casey might otherwise bear.

Norm.
Reply With Quote