Thursday, June 9, 2011

WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL INCLUDING CASEY ANTHONY?


The American Pledge of Allegiance ends with the familiar phrase “with liberty and justice for all.” We all recite this pledge automatically, as we were taught in childhood. But, does anyone anymore really think of the meaning of these words, or have they become just words?

On a recent telecast, Nancy Grace, the argumentative news commentator, spoke of seeking justice for the dead toddler, Caylee Anthony. Then, she proceeded to lament the presence of a juror in the murder trial of the dead child’s young mother, who appears behaviorally to have doubts about the prosecution's case. She labeled this juror as a "nut job" who could prevent "justice" for Caylee. One has to question the meaning of "justice" in Grace's mind.

Is not our legal system based on the presumption of innocence of the accused?  It is not beholden on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?  Thus, is not the doubt of the outlying juror to be respected, not vilified to further Grace’s agenda?  Is this not what "justice" is all about?  Justice is for everyone or it is for no one. Grace's emotional sentimentality has clouded her judgment and she is serving as a firebrand, stirring up emotions in the public, especially in women, by playing to their maternal instincts, doubts, and personal tragedies.

The sad thing about this whole sordid and tragic media circus is that it speaks volumes about where this nation has come. Many people are inclined to rush to an emotional judgment that cuts to the core of our Republic and all for which it stands. They, like Nancy Grace, are willing to sacrifice one human being and the core principles of our Republic so that they can promote their cause or personal agenda. Grace wants to see justice done for the child. Though she is arguably the worst in her demagoguery, she is not alone. tinually, other commentators in the media play upon emotions, speaking about justice for "little Caylee."  But, is it not simply justice (read retribution) for the child and not truly liberty and justice for all?  Wouldn't miscarriage of justice in the case of Casey Anthony be miscarriage of justice for Caylee?

We need continually to remind ourselves that it is the truth that is important, not the "truth" as we are inclined emotionally to see it. The Anthony family situation is so complex and convoluted and our information so limited regarding the actual circumstances and cause of death that anything is possible. There is no direct evidence tying Casey to her daughter’s death and certainly no direct evidence of murder. There are many possible scenarios and explanations for the circumstantial evidence which the prosecution has presented. A number of people have uniformly observed, both in and out of court, that Casey was a doting mother in many respects when she was seen with her child. This doesn’t mean that she was, by any means “a good mother,” but there is certainly evidence that she had a relationship with her daughter that was inconsistent with being a murderess.

Yesterday, the prosecution presented evidence of the searches performed from Casey’s computer. There were some incongruous items included with the chloroform searches that seemed to suggest that it was a young male who entered the search terms or at least one who thought like a young male, viz., self-defense, hand-to-hand combat, as well as other terms such as internal bleeding, chest trauma, ruptured spleen, head injuries, all of which might be of interest to someone who was fascinated with the potential damage to an adversary which could be inflicted using some form of martial arts.

We need, as former talk show host, Larry King, said in a recent interview with Piers Morgan, to withhold judgment until the whole trial plays out, i.e., until the defense presents its case. And, I would add that we need to respect the judicial process which requires that a jury verdict be unanimous and not be maligning jurors who don’t appear to go along with the crowd. As King said, the media has already tried and convicted Casey. He was unwilling to go along with this mob frenzy, and for this I applaud him.

If the general public is so quick to throw away the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in the case of a person so uniformly disliked as Casey Anthony, thus dispensing with both liberty and justice, then should we be at all surprised that these same people are not distressed when their representatives in Congress or the Executive Branch throw away liberty and justice in bending the Constitution’s commerce and general welfare causes to suit their personal agendas or those of the lobbyists who “buy” their votes.

Sunday, June 5, 2011

The Casey Anthony Trial: Shades of the "Either-Or" Mentality in the Political Process

 

Either-Or

Photo by Jonathan Horowitz

Hello, Everyone.  I haven’t posted here for more than a year and the site desperately needs updating.  However, I’ll have to attend to this task later.  Just ignore the stuff in the right-hand margin.  That being said, I want to share some thoughts that have been weighing on my mind of late.  As I ponder and lament the landslide rush to judgment which has been occurring in the Casey Anthony murder trial, long before all of the evidence and arguments have been submitted in court, I am struck yet again with the unfortunate, but characteristic, human failing that leads people to come to judgments based on their emotional reactions to situations and to pass these off as rational conclusions based on evidence.  Often the evidence that is cited is selectively and automatically chosen by the perceptual and conceptual framework within which the person operates in making judgments about the world.  And, the person making a judgment is typically convinced that his/her view is the only reasonable view that one could hold.  In other words, either the view is "true" or it is not.  Of course, the person does not want to hold a false view, so the dualistic, "either-or" mentality dictates that there is only one correct view.  The other view is manifestly incorrect.  If another person does not hold the same view, then the individual is just plain stupid, irrational, or as is so often heard in the political sphere, this person is simply a "liberal idiot" or a "conservative wing nut."  Most of us don't realize how much our intellectual apparatus determines the "truth" in which we believe.  To put it another way, "open-mindedness" is not a strong human suit.  It must "be carefully taught," as Oscar Hammerstein said to the music of Richard Rodgers in the musical South Pacific.

You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught!

In preparing for this essay, I searched for others' comments on the "either-or" mentality.  I happened to run across a very interesting post on Facebook by the Acting Leader of the Alberta Party in Canada, Sue Huff.  After meeting with residents in one town to answer questions about the Alberta Party, she wrote: 

It was a lively and intelligent conversation covering a great range of topics. But one conversation is stuck in my head this morning... a discussion about changing the way we think about politics.

I was talking with a woman who teaches education students (future social studies teachers) and she commented how their perception of democracy was limited to "majority rules". Winners win, losers lose. End of discussion.

This is either/or democracy. Take a postion [sic], pick a side and only listen to the other side to figure out how to defeat their arguments. It is a debate model and it is what we have inherited, but is it working and is it sophisticated enough for our complex, multi-faceted, integrated, demanding world?

I don't think so.

I don't think so, either.  No pun intended.   Huff goes on to say:

Maybe it's time to examine a new model, where we look at complex issues with different perspectives in ways that embrace BOTH ideas AND move us forward towards new, unimagined solutions. A both/and model of politics.…

What if the BOTH/AND attitude was applied to everything? Not because we are greedy and want it all or because we are trying to please everyone- clearly neither is possible- but because we are seeking balance, proportion and an inclusive way forward that does not create so many losers and so few winners. When a section of society continually feels they are on the losing side, resentment, disengagement, suspicion, rage and even violence can result, threatening the health of our democracy and the safety of our communities.

This will require a courageous shift in thinking. On a simple level, it's " I'm right, you're also right and we're both a little wrong. So, what can we take from that to move forward?"
I believe the best solutions have not yet been discovered, because we've been locked in oppositional, confrontational, either/or politics.

Maybe it's time for politics to evolve to meet the new realities.

I couldn't agree more with Ms. Huff.  However, I don't think that politics can "evolve to meet the new realities" without a fundamental change in the way that we educate children.  Parents are, for the most part, doing a miserable job in this regard, because no one, typically, ever taught them how to think holistically and creatively about life situations, so they can only inculcate what they have ineffectually learned.  Witness the very dysfunctional Anthony family. 

The major problem which we face is that our minds are running predominantly on autopilot and this autopilot provides us in quite computer-like fashion with prefabricated, ready-made ways of viewing situations which are based on our fundamental beliefs, which in turn have been developed out of our unique experience.  Belief is a powerful determinant of thought, feeling, and behavior.  Once it is in place, it is very difficult to shake.

I am continually appalled how the media has supported and even encouraged the rush to judgment in the Anthony case.  Although they give lip service at times to the judicial process and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the great majority of them have continually prosecuted the case in front of captive audiences.  In many cases, they have already tried and convicted Casey Anthony of intentionally murdering her young daughter and are guilty of "jury tampering," by which I mean tampering with the "jury of public opinion."  Absent is objective journalistic reporting.  The Nancy Grace show is the worst offender.  Others follow close behind.  Occasionally, guests will object, but they do so with the ever-present threat that their microphones will be cut, when their views "fall from Grace."

I am even more appalled that we live in a culture which does not encourage and nurture critical, holistic thinking, in which the developing thinker is helped to learn how to assess the  data (evidence) of the world, in other words to cast a wide net, before coming to a conclusion, and to recognize that all conclusions are only approximations to the truth like scientific theories which are developed for the purpose of organizing scientific observations.  Einstein, himself, is reported to have said of his great accomplishment in developing the theory of relativity that his theory was only one of an infinitude of other possible theories that could have accounted for the observations equally as well or perhaps even better.  The development of such truth-seeking thinking can only occur, however, in the context of a healthy, loving, supportive family environment that is is not fraught with conflict arising out of emotional, physical, or sexual abuse.

The talking heads in the media, who continually appear to analyze, dissect, and draw conclusions, are actually sensationally fanning the flames of presumption and premature judgment which appear rational but which rest squarely on emotional reactions.  It does not require a big stretch to understand why this is happening.  "Follow the money" works for me.

We always "react" in knee-jerk fashion when under the sway of the computer-like autopilot.  To "respond" intelligently to situations, we must remain ever-mindful of what is happening in the present moment and to make the pursuit of truth our highest priority, no matter what our guts tell us.

There is now a continual deluge of commentary on how devastating the jail house tapes are to Casey Anthony's defense.  These are video tapes of her conversations with family members.  If one approaches them with the prejudgment that Casey killed her daughter, they, of course, will seem damaging.  However, there are many alternate theories, as in the case of Relativity, that can conceivably be developed to explain Casey's behavior in these tapes and her behavioral reactions to them in court.  In addition, there are little, isolated incidents that have been recorded that just don't fit neatly with the prevailing views, and have gone relatively unnoticed and maybe even ignored, precisely because they don't fit.   For example, if George still believed that Casey was alive in the Summer or late Fall, why did he speak of Caylee in the past tense, as if acknowledging that she was already dead.  This occurred in one of the jail house conversations with Casey.  In addition, there is the early report from a neighbor who observed Casey walking her dog.  

Remember, early in the case, the neighbor's story about the dog? Casey Anthony was walking her dog on a leash and took the leash off to let the dog run through a neigbor's [sic] flowerbed. When he confronted Casey, who was still holding the leash in her hand, the neighbor asked her why she let her dog tear up his flowerbed. Casey Anthony allegedly said, "That’s not my dog." The neighbor said, "Sure it’s your dog, you still have the leash in your hand." Casey looked at him and said, "I just found this leash."

The adversarial nature of the courtroom process encourages and reinforces the "either-or" mentality.  One either accepts the prosecution view of Casey Anthony as a cold-blooded psychopathic murderer, or one accepts the defense view that Casey's daughter, Caylee, drowned in the family swimming pool , and following years of alleged sexual abuse of Casey, she participated in a cover up carried out by her father, George, who buried the body in a wooded area near the Anthony home.  Other explanations go by the wayside in the context of the courtroom drama, followed by millions of people as the media pundits whip up a kind of mob mentality, which to me is disgusting to observe.  Whatever happened to dispassionate consideration of the facts?  I can tell you what happened.  It is very difficult to be dispassionate and objective when the media personalities, especially Nancy Grace, are continually flashing the most adorable images of the dead child on the screen night after night and talking about "little Caylee" while suggesting that "Tot Mom" put her body in a garbage bag and left it in a field to rot."   Of course, a toddler's death is a tragic event, but it does not help the pursuit of truth and justice to play upon the parental sensitivities of the public to persuade people to adopt one's view.  "Tot Mom," Grace's patented name for Casey Anthony, appears to be designed to disparage Casey and to inflame the public with an emotional anchor that acts like an hypnotic suggestion.   Repeating "Tot Mom" is all it takes to bring up the mob reaction to a mother who was certainly ill-prepared to be a parent, but has not been shown to be a murderess.   Is it a coincidence that "Tot" means "dead" in German, or is "Tot Mom" simply Grace's attempt to build her ratings and to achieve greater notoriety?   In any case, many members of the media have become demagogues, and Nancy Grace is the worst offender.

A view, or theory, which is being considered by virtually no one, is that Casey Anthony is suffering from severe dissociation, a splitting of her mental process into compartments, which can be isolated from one another.  In the extreme, such dissociation can manifest as Dissociation Identity Disorder [old term, Multiple Personality Disorder], in which the personality fragments into multiple identities or alters.  Many people have expressed amazement at the detailed nature of Casey's "lies," which are convincingly delivered without any signs of uneasiness.  Such "lies," however, are totally consistent with the situation of a person who operates with different identities, most of which can be unaware of the existence of the others.  The anecdote of Casey walking her dog mentioned above is totally consistent with the dissociation theory.  So, too, is Casey's bizarre behavior during the month-long period following Caylee's last being seen alive and during which time Casey maintained that she was looking for her daughter, but at the same time was observed to act callously, as if not at all concerned about her daughter's disappearance.

The bottom line to all of this is that we don't just have just two choices, as depicted in the photo above.  We don't have to choose either Pepsi or Coca Cola.  We can back away from the machine that is our autopilot and make a different, healthier choice.