Casey Anthony and avoiding alpha error
Let me say up front that I haven't really followed the recent Casey Anthony trial and associated goings-on, so I apologize if I'm covering well-trodden territory or leaving out something important. I picked up a little from my wife (who follows that sort of news) and have read a few items since the acquittal, so I'm going to give my take based on that base of knowledge. I also want to stress that nothing I say here should be construed to mean that I'm defending the violent monopolization of law and justice to which we all are subject.
It seems what we have here is an instance of an individual whose child died; circumstances seemed suspicious to Nancy Grace, a bunch of emotional and easily manipulated Americans, and--most significantly--a government persecutor...er, I mean, prosecutor; and the state failed to prove its case that the accused killed her child. The result has been that many of those aforementioned Americans have become incoherent, bloodlusting, foaming-at-the-mouth animals calling for vigilante justice (which, when defined as a victim (or his assigned agent) seeking justice from his aggressor, I'm not necessarily opposed to but which is quite clearly not how it's being used here) and something they're calling "Caylee's Law," which would make it "a felony for a parent, legal guardian, or caretaker to not notify law enforcement of the disappearance of a child within 24 hours of the time that they know the child is missing."
What also happened is that the justice system actually sort of did what it was supposed to do--avoided the alpha error. In criminal justice, the alpha error (analogous to the more general alpha error in statistics) is the punishment of an innocent person. The absolute necessity of minimizing the alpha error is one of the great aspects of the American justice system (and yes, I feel like a need to shower after paying that system a compliment). It's why the accused is considered "innocent until proven guilty." It's what helps protect Nancy Grace and all her newly minted clones out there if ever they're accused of a crime they didn't commit. It's one of the foundations of Western law. The idea is that it's far better to allow 100 murderers to go free than send one innocent person to prison or the gallows. In this instance, the justice system stuck to that principle, and a good chunk of the American public is up in arms about it.
(I should note that Casey Anthony was acquitted of murder but was convicted of lying to the cops, something that Anthony Gregory argues---and I agree---should not be a crime: "The Right to Lie to the Cops".)
Radley Balko has a great piece on the irrationality of this Caylee's Law thing ("Why 'Caylee's Law' is a Bad Idea"). He gets right to the heart of the matter toward the end:
In a country of 308 million people, bad things are going to happen. We already have laws against murder, child abuse, and child neglect. When you pass laws that make it easier to imprison people in cases where the state doesn't have enough evidence to prove the crime everyone knows they're actually prosecuting, you undermine the integrity of the justice system. The "flaw" that led to the Casey Anthony verdict is pretty straightforward: The state failed to prove its case. And the government must prove its case, even when all of America is 100 percent certain of the defendant's guilt, because we want to be sure the state will always also have to prove its case when we aren't so certain.
So what it comes down to is that by requiring the presumption of innocence and demanding that the state actually prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of a dozen different people, a guilty person may have gone free, but the falsely accused everywhere have been protected (to whatever extent that's possible under a forcibly monopolized justice system).
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
July 14th, 2011 - 21:16
Hi Darren, thank you for your post, it was an interesting read. It sounds to me that you have deep issues with Nancy Grace. Too bad it seems to cloud your judgement in regards to Casey Anthony’s behavior. Mrs. Grace is called “Nancy Disgrace” in this household, so please understand I am no “blood-lusting” minion of hers. I also find it offensive to be lumped by you into this “crazed” group because I think Casey Anthony is guilty of murder. I watched the trial from beginning to end, and feel competent to have an educated discussion about the trial. Let me also state that I respect the jurors decision in this case, reasonable doubt is different for everyone. And let’s face it, if the Sheriff’s department had done a thorough search of the Casey’s neighborhood back in July of 08, they would have found a body ripe with trace evidence, soft tissue, and a possible cause of death. But on the flip side, one can not ignore the fact that three layers of duct tape were placed around Caylee’s head so securely that when she decomposed, her lower jaw remained in place by said duct tape. Folks just don’t stage a drowning accident to look like murder. It makes no sense.
I am also a bit confused where you pulled this “alpha error” terminology from in regards to criminal justice. Having gone to school for criminal justice, not once was that term used. What makes our justice system the best in the world is the presumption of innocence, and burden of proof lies with the prosecutor. Also, the right to invoke the 5th amendment, and not incriminate yourself. My professor also told us that it is better for 100 guilty go free, than convict one innocent. The D.A. and Sheriff’s Dept. dropped the ball on this one, and you bet there will be improvements in their procedure.
Again, it is offensive to be name called and dismissed and called crazy when someone doesn’t happen to agree with you. It is like calling someone a racist because they don’t like Obama. Or tea partier’s “teabagger” A bit unfair don’t you think?
Yes, I agree it is ridiculous that as a society we have to discuss creating a law making it a crime for not reporting your child missing. How sad that the public at large can’t be relied upon to do the right thing and call the police right away if they lose or have their child taken. It is sad that Miss Anthony has shown us a new low in irresponsible parenting.
Take care Darren, I have found that trying to understand different points of view is much easier on the blood pressure than condemning and name calling dissenters.
July 15th, 2011 - 00:10
Mary, you don’t necessarily need to feel lumped in with the blood-lusting mouth-foamers I mentioned; I saved that description for the people calling for vigilante justice against Casey Anthony (so if you’re one of those people, please go ahead and consider yourself lumped in). And although I think Nancy Grace is a pretty horrible person, this is not about her. It’s about the big chunk of people whose behavior I think she represents.
As for alpha error, it may not be extremely common, but it is used in criminal justice (maybe some texts or professors refer to it as Type 1 error). It’s just a term for returning a false positive (i.e. punishing an innocent person).
“Yes, I agree it is ridiculous that as a society we have to discuss creating a law making it a crime for not reporting your child missing.”
Actually, that’s not what I said or think. I don’t think we have to discuss such a law; I think the entire idea of the law is preposterous, and the anger that led to it is a terrible way to develop law.
“How sad that the public at large can’t be relied upon to do the right thing and call the police right away if they lose or have their child taken.”
That seems like an odd generalization to make based on one case. It also seems odd to use the terms “relied upon” and “the right thing,” which would seem to imply that you believe children are some kind of common property of a community or social group that gets to determine when the “right” time is to report a child missing. Furthermore, it contradicts your belief that Casey is guilty of murder. If she is guilty, this has nothing to do with being irresponsible in reporting a missing child.
August 2nd, 2011 - 10:59
I never understood “better to allow 100 murderers to go free than send one innocent person to prison or the gallows.” If a 100 murders go free, it’s likely at least one if not many more innocent people will be harmed, either by the released murderers themselves or by others who no longer have as much disincentive to crime. The purpose of a justice system, ironically, shouldn’t be to provide “justice”, but to prevent future crimes from happening and compensate victims. And since when is a 1% chance of innocence “reasonable doubt”?
Casey Anthony may be innocent, though I doubt that, but we should definitely watch out for future kids in her care and hope no one else thinks they can get away with a crime because of this case.