Reformation
Getting Away With Murder–And What We Can Do About It
I followed closely “the trial of the 20th century”– the O.J. Simpson murder case–and more recently the “trial of the 21st century” involving Casey Anthony and the death of her daughter, Caylee.
When the jurors reached the Simpson verdict in 1995, I was traveling with a friend out of state. When the media announced the arrival at a verdict, we high-tailed it to a television set where we eagerly awaited the outcome.
Last week was similar. When I heard on the radio that the Casey Anthony verdict would be announced at 11 am, I arranged my schedule to tune in. Both Shirley and I watched in silence as the decision was read to the nation.
My reaction to both verdicts was the same—stunned disbelief with knots in my stomach. In both cases, I agree with a majority of people that a murderer was set free and an innocent victim denied justice.
It’s time to make some changes in the criminal justice system.
I have some recommendations.
First, let’s re-visit each gut-wrenching case. In the OJ Simpson trial, as in most murder trials, there were no eyewitnesses but loads of circumstantial evidence. Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman were cruelly killed with a knife in cold blood—her throat slit and his body slashed. The evidence clearly pointed to Brown’s estranged husband, O.J. Simpson who had the motive, the erratic behavior, and various clues that pointed his direction.,
The case ultimately hinged on a bloody glove–that was linked to the crimes–being found on Simpson’s Belmont estate.
The jurors had this decision to make: Either O.J. Simpson killed his wife and Ron Goldman, or a sinister detective planted evidence to make it look that way.
These were the only two reasonable choices.
Bad cop or guilty O.J.
The jurors in the O.J. trial chose the bad cop theory and claimed racism was behind the “planted evidence.”
We all screamed that they were wrong and that it was a travesty of justice.
Now there is the Casey Anthony acquittal. Anthony’s three year-old daughter, Caylee, was found dead in December 2008 in a swamp near the Anthony home. Casey was the last person to be seen with Caylee on July 15, 2008. Her death was clearly a murder because duct tape was found on her mouth and nose (skeletal remains) and her lifeless body had been placed in two plastic bags and a laundry sack and tossed into a swampy woods.
There were other forensic clues. A chloroform search on a computer, the duct tape linked to Casey’s house, the smell of death in the trunk of her car, and a strand of hair consistent with Caylee’s also found there. But the forensic case wasn’t a slam dunk–and dueling experts came to different conclusions.
To me, there were two damning pieces of evidence that put this case beyond a “reasonable doubt.” First was Casey’s behavior after the little girl’s death. She had failed to report her daughter missing for thirty-one days and partied virtually the whole time. Grieving mothers don’t celebrate and have tattoos put on their shoulder that say “Bella Vita” (Beautiful Life). She then lied about a fictitious nanny who was supposed to be watching the child, about a rich boyfriend, and about where she worked.
Over time, Casey Anthony proved to be a pathological liar.
Probably the most “honest” moment of the trial was hearing Casey’s mother, Cindy, react in a 911 call to her first suspicions of what had happened to Caylee. When Cindy realized her granddaughter had been missing for over a month, Cindy called 911 in clear distress with these chilling words:
“I can’t find my granddaughter. She (Casey) just admitted to me that she’s been trying to find her herself. There’s something wrong. I found my daughter’s car today and it smells like there’s been a dead body in the damn car.”
Casey had abandoned her car in a parking lot. The stench of death reeked from the trunk.
I know the smell of rotting flesh, having experienced it a few times when I’ve been around deceased corpses. Human decomposition is a unique and horrific smell–and you never forget it.
In this moment of tearful honesty, Cindy Anthony had discovered the truth: She suspected her own daughter was responsible for killing their granddaughter. During the trial, though the forensics were debatable, the circumstantial evidence was glaring. Casey was the the last person with Caylee; Chloroform computer search; Duct tape from the home; Abandoned car with the smell of death; Partying for thirty days while the little girl’s body rotted; Lying to everyone about everything.
However, during the trial, Casey’s defense lawyers were successful in fabricating theories and blaming others for Caylee’s death. They said that the Anthony home was dysfunctional. They blamed the murder on Casey’s father, George Anthony, who they claimed had abused Casey as a child, was an adulterer, and may have helped cover up or participate in the death.
But their biggest smokescreen, shared in opening arguments, was that Caylee’s death was an accident that went “terribly wrong.” They offered zero proof of this theory. It also made no sense. Why would a child’s accidental death place her in a bag with duct tape and send the mother out partying for a month? When a child accidently dies, you call the police, you grieve, and you have a memorial to honor the loss of the precious life.
You don’t party, lie, and cover up.
Yet, incredibly, when two of the jurors spoke about the verdict afterwards, they both had apparently bought the “accident” theory. As to Casey partying for a month, one of them said, “Yeah, that was bizarre.”
No, it was evil–and they weren’t able to see it.
Like most of America–and the world–I’m deeply troubled by both of these verdicts that made a mockery of justice. As a biblical Christian, I’m committed to seeing God’s will “down on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10). That will includes God’s passion for justice.
Yes, it’s inevitable that in a fallen world mistakes will be made. I believe the Casey Anthony jurors were sincere when they came up with their verdict. I really don’t blame them.
But eternity will reveal they were wrong. A murderer was set free. A little girl was treated unjustly. And all of America was taught that if you’re a good enough liar you can beat the system. That alone will produce terrible consequences in the coming years.
I hope we use the OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony travesties of justice to make some changes to our criminal justice system. Here are some recommendations:
1. Don’t permit the rejection of potential jurors due to their moral principles or faith. I was once rejected from a jury because I was a “Christian who was pro-life.” The defense lawyers didn’t want principled, moral-thinking people deciding their case! They wanted to bamboozle fuzzy thinking, immoral people. Free societies–which ought to be tried by citizen juries–a Constiutional right–can only stay free when people of faith and morality serve. For those quick to say that our Constitutional system worked in the Casey Anthony trial, I would remind you of the words of John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Same with juries.
2. Don’t force jurors to deal with the finer nuances of law or sentencing. Part of the problem in the Anthony case was obvious confusion over whether they should convict, beyond a reasonable doubt, of Murder One, Manslaughter, Child abuse, etc. That shouldn’t be the jury’s job. Let them keep to the basics. Was a murder committed by a certain party? Then leave the sentencing or type of murder to legal professionals (a judge or judges) who can give the proper sentence for the crime.
3. Don’t allow defense lawyers, or prosecution teams, to present “theories” to the jury that they are not required to back up. If they state a theory, they must present evidence to confirm it. If they don’t attempt to do so, they lose the case or are disqualified from finishing the proceedings. This will stop a lot of “lawyer lies.”
4. Beyond a “reasonable doubt” does not mean beyond a “shadow of a doubt.” There will always be some doubt where evidence of terrible crimes is limited. It was totally reasonable to believe, based on the circumstantial evidence, that O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony committed murder. Much greater clarity of understanding is needed here.
5. We should also re-examine whether our laws against self-incrimination promote justice. In the Bible, people suspected of various crimes were required to testify themselves as to their innocence or guilt. This testimony is extremely valuable. It certainly would have convicted O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony. Does pursuing true justice require honesty, from all parties involved?
6. We need to be much swifter in dispensing justice. The Bible is very clear on this point. Long trials and years of appeals dull the heart and mind and lead to poor decisions. They also lead to more crimes being committed because of the lack of swift justice which is a restraint on evil.
7. Television crime shows have falsely given the impression that all cases can be solved by forensics–or that they are the key to convicting people. No–circumstantial evidence is extremely important. In the death of Caylee Anthony, DNA could not be found due to exposure to the elements for six months. But the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly pointed to Casey Anthony as the killer.
Erick Erickson of redstate.com shared some of the wiser words on the Casey Antony verdict:
“Casey Anthony got off because she worked the system. In a fair and impartial court system this happens. It’s too bad. But the worst part of this is the idea that we can take the denial of justice for a toddler who was brutally murdered and use it to pat ourselves on the back about what a great society we are.”
“Are we a great society because a young, damaged single mother who claimed her own father molested her left her daughter with him to go drinking? Are we a great society because we produce people who would rather go to wet t-shirt contests than look for their missing children? Are we a great society because our citizens try to frame innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit? Or are we a great society because people like that can find a way to get off?”
“The Casey Anthony verdict doesn’t endorse our criminal justice system; it exposes our crumbling society. The courts can’t always dispense justice, it is up to society to protect our children. We need to bring back public shaming, we need to bring back the idea of moral responsibility separate from legal responsibility.”
We need a renewal of our society–including the vital areas of law and justice.
Let’s pursue it, for Caylee’s sake.
Also for the needed re-birth of the fear of the Lord in our land.
Why The Media Loathes Sarah Palin, and Will Soon Have Michelle Bachmann in Their Cross-Hairs
I admit that according to the current PC standards at CNN, I shouldn’t have used the term “cross hairs.” But it’s the only image that comes to mind when I ponder the the utter contempt and hatred that the media has shown for Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for the past three years.
She’s not just in their “cross hairs.” They’ve editorially murdered her numerous times. I’ve never witnessed such hostile bias toward a candidate. The most recent bullseye they put on her back consisted of drooling over what they might find in some 24,000 government e-mails she sent while governor of Alaska.
All they revealed was that Sarah was a competent and likable governor who really loves her children. How humiliating.
Why does the secular media loathe Sarah Palin? And if she does not run for president of the United States, why will they soon train those same guns on Minnesota Representative Michelle Bachmann?
I can think of at least seven reasons why the secular press has done everything in their power to discredit and discourage Governor Palin from running for president of the United States:
1. Sara Palin is an out-spoken, evangelical Christian. The secular press in this nation–which includes The New Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, the Big Three television networks, and CNN and MSNNBC–have become fairly anti-faith in the past thirty years. They used to be more balanced in their approach to the news, but today they make no bones that they do not support the Judeo-Christian worldview which is at America’s core. They are secular, media outlets who do their best to ridicule and marginalize Christianity while peddling the principles and worldview of atheism.
The only exception was the “puffing” of born-again Christian Jimmy Carter. But that was for good reason. Carter may have been a Christian in heart, but his public policies were clearly secular or humanistic. He was a political liberal–something they share in common. So they overlooked his faith to promote his ideals. Those policies were disastrous for America in the 1970s.
The Big Media hate Sarah Palin because she is a person of faith both in heart and in mind. That makes her a major threat to their progressive agenda. They want to “progress” away from Christianity–not restore and encourage its blessings.
2. Sarah Palin is a principled conservative—and they loathe the views of conservatives. Why? Because conservative positions on most issues are the Christian expression of political ideas. In the same way that Christian faith is meant to “conserve culture”–Jesus said we were to be the “light of the world and the salt of the earth,”–biblical truths applied to government help conserve civilization. They strengthen families, promote justice, enhance freedom, and encourage right relationship to God and others.
Sarah Palin and other conservatives are fighting hard to point America back to God and his principles for just and free societies. The secular media is the opposing team.
3. Sarah Palin is articulate–sharing common sense solutions to America’s problems. If she wasn’t so good at it they wouldn’t pay attention to her. She may not be as smooth as other candidates, and she makes her share of mistakes as all politicians do, but on the whole she is refreshing because her perspective on the issues is wise and practical: Balance the budget, stop spending money you don’t have, encourage thrift and hard work, support the military who defend our shores, lower taxes, decrease government regulations, and Drill, Baby Drill (energy independence)!
The secular press disdains the wisdom of the past–the things that made America great. They’re into social experimentation and freedom without boundaries or restraints.
Somehow, some way, they need to make the Sarah Palins of the world look like country bumpkins.
4. Sarah Palin is feminine–even pretty–which is the anti-thesis of their unisexual ideal. The liberal left has spent more than one generation trying to permanently change the image of women. Feminism has made some positive contributions to modern society, but its great negative has been to blur the distinction between men and women–essentially encouraging women to look and behave like men. The goal is a uni-sexual culture that breaks down the God-given distinctions and giftings of the two sexes.
The clearest expression of this in the 20th century was Communist China where women and men all dressed in drab black suits and performed the same jobs. Atheism doesn’t like maleness and femaleness and the roles and responsibilities that go with it. It’s harder to control. And secularism–or liberalism–is all about control.
Have you noticed that the “ideal” liberal woman usually look and act like men? Think of Hillary Clinton in pant-suits and Geraldine Ferraro’s masculine haircut. Sarah Palin is the opposite. Yeah, she’s tough, and enjoys the Alaskan frontier–but in looks and demeanor she’s a female “Ten.” Not the image and policies that feminism (and its policies) want in the White House.
What kind of person does the New Times and its kind want to be the first female president? A feminist! Sarah Palin does not fit the bill.
5. She’s a common person, not a member of the elite. One thing we have come to learn about liberalism or secularism in the past few years is its love affair with experts or the societal elite. Ivy League schools are preferred and membership in the Tri-Lateral Commission. Secularists believe they are superior to the common folk. They know better. Thus, they must control the decisions and lives of everyday people. There is an arrogance that follows much of secular thought.
Sarah Palin is refreshingly a humble, common American. She has no pedigree, inherited wealth, or social privilege. Shirley and I really enjoyed Sarah Palin’s Alaska, her beautifully filmed reality series that show-cased the beauty of our forty-ninth state. The adventures of the Palin family were fun to watch. But the thing that struck me most was this: Sara Palin is one of us. She’s a plain, ordinary person to whom I can relate. She understands the problems and pains or the common man and shares their solutions.
How refreshing! The liberal elites just want to vomit.
6. Sarah Palin is patriotic–not an internationalist. Make no mistake that the forces that are driving us toward one-world government or control are those of communism, secularism or Islam–not Christianity. Secularism’s savior is government–and the bigger the better. That’s why most liberals are not extremely patriotic. They like the benefits of America but not the beliefs that made her great.
7. Sarah Palin is a female version of Ronald Reagan who would set back their cause back thirty or more years. They loathed the Gipper too, and did everything in their power to see him defeated. But Reagan rose from from humble beginnings to become one of the great conservative-minded presidents of the 20th century. Sarah Palin could just possibly do the same.
That’s why she must be chopped down to size by the libeal press so that her negatives are so high through biased reporting that she becomes unelectable.
The media has done a pretty good job of ruining the reputation of Sarah Palin over the past three years. So good that my guess is that she will not run for president in 2012.
But after last night’s Republican debate and announcement, there is another Sarah Palin waiting in the wings. Her name is Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann. She too is an evangelical Christian, an articulate conservative, pretty, a common sense woman (she raised 23 foster children), who’s extremely patriotic, and very Reaganesque.
She annonced last night that she will be running for president in 2012.
I can already hear the sighs and curses in Big Media newsrooms. And I can imagine the vicious attack that will soon begin on a woman who could lead us back to God and greatness.
Let’s not let them succeed.
Let’s pray, get involved, and vote for those leaders who can help us restore the American Dream of “One Nation Under God.”
Don’t Believe the Spin: It’s Seven Giants versus One Dwarf in 2012
I began publishing Revive America Blogs in the fall of 2008 when the United States was in the throes of a presidential campaign. Some of the first articles received quite a bit of criticism.
But I shared what I believed was true–and time has, unfortunately, confirmed those fears. The American electorate chose poorly in 2008–and three years later:
- Unemployment stands at 9.1 percent and is rising, not declining.
- Big Government is regulating the life out of the job-creating private sector.
- A mountain of debt is threatening our future, and the Party in power seems oblivious.
- The secular onslaught on our society continues–encouraged by those in leadership.
- There is increasing fear and uncertainty about what the future holds for America.
And now the 2012 presidential campaign is underway. The liberal media has already tipped its hand on how it will try to keep its man in power. They can’t point to his record, so they will resort to smearing or diminishing his opponents. The current strategy is something like this:
The Republican field is mediocre with many flawed candidates.
Don’t believe the spin.
It’s seven giants versus one dwarf in 2012.
Here’s why.
First of all, let me explain what I mean that the current seven Republican presidential candidates are “giants” and the current US president, Barack Obama, is a “dwarf.” I use these terms figuratively as to what makes a national leader effective and trustworthy.
All eight of these men and women–seven declared Republicans and one Democratic president–are fallen human beings with flaws, quirks, and sins. Standing before the Cross of Jesus Christ, they are all on equal ground–in need of redemption and the empowering of the Holy Spirit. All of them identify themselves as followers of Christ. I will not judge that aspect. Only God knows the heart.
Their giant or dwarf status does not lie in this realm. It pertains to two other categories.
First, a political-leader giant has broad, executive, real-world leadership experience. Being the president of the United States is, in essence, being the CEO of the world’s largest corporation. To do well in that role, our political chief must understand how freedom works, how jobs are created, how free markets operate, how compassion works, how to build strong families, and why nations are respected in the world.
In other words, to be a good president, one needs to have a track record of proven success. Novices do not make good presidents of nations.
Secondly, in keeping with America’s history, a United States president needs to have a set of guiding principles that are anchored to the pillars of biblical liberty. He or she must be the leading cheerleader and policy implementor of limited government, hard work, free enterprise, fair courts, strong defense, public morality, and in a word–freedom. The President of the United States must know how to create jobs and strengthen culture. He/she must be clear in the principles that allow God to bring His blessings to a nation.
To be a political giant you need to be anchored to GIANT PRINCIPLES–common sense truths–that work in the lives of individuals and nations. Worldview is a vital quality of good leaders. You ultimately do not lead through personality or style. You lead by your principles. Knowledge is power (Proverbs 24:5).
This distinction makes dwarfness obvious: A political dwarf is inexperienced and operates by a bad set of ideals.
It is on these two points that the Republican candidates for president of the United States and the current Democratic incumbent are miles apart. In the 2012 election, the seven Republican challengers are all giants. Our current president is the only dwarf.
Let’s look at each individually, beginning with the seven most likely Republican presidential candidates (declared or undeclared), and a few others that might be in the mix. First there are three former governors.
Mitt Romney– he is the current front-runner and former governor of Massachusetts. Romney is a giant on both accounts. He is a very successful businessman who guided (rescued) the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. He also has strong political executive leadership experience as a successful governor of a blue state. In worldview and policies, Mitt Romney understands job creation, free markets, the importance of family and morality, and the necessity of strong defense. His so-called Romneycare weakness is defensible along the lines of federalism. He has promised that his first act as president will be to give all fifty states a waiver on Obamacare. He wants it repealed. For whatever weaknesses he has, Romney is still a giant in experience and principles.
2. Tim Pawlenty– Pawlenty is the former governor of another blue state–Minnesota. He is recognized as one of the most effective governors of the past decade who helped turn the business climate around in his state. Prior to that, Pawlenty was a successful lawyer and vice president of a software company. Pawlenty has experience in the real world. Tim Pawlenty is an evangelical Christian who also shares the biblical view of limited government, personal responsibility, pro-life, strong marriages, and strong defense. He is also willing to take on the reform of entitlement programs that are swelling the American deficit. Pawlenty is a leadership and policy giant.
3. Sarah Palin– She is not a declared candidate, and may sit out the 2012 election, but she is a potent force in American politics despite the constant bludgeoning by the political left. When she joined the Republican ticket in 2008, she was the most admired governor in America with an 80% approval rating. She has strong experience in both small business–with her husband Todd–but also in executive leadership as mayor of a town and governor as a state. She is hated by the drive-by media because she is the antithesis of their idea of a modern woman–she’s loves God, family, the military, and has a Judeo-Christian philosophy of life. She will have giant-like influence on the 2012 election regardless of whether she runs or not.
There are three from the United States Congress that are also giants in experience and ideals.
Newt Gingrich– Former Congressman, and Speaker of the House helped produce balanced budgets during the latter part of the Clinton years. Newt has a very clear understanding of American history and exceptionalism and is probably the most innovative “idea-guy” among all the contenders. He understands how to create jobs, has run many successful organizations, and seems to be deepening in his faith the older he gets. Newt is an intellectual giant in the areas that matter in American society.
5. Michelle Bachmann –She’s a current rising star in the Republican Party who just recently hired Ed Rollins to run her soon-to-be-announced candidacy. Rollins was the guiding mind behind the Reagan re-election of 1984. Bachmann has great personal leadership experience as a lawyer, business owner, and mother of over forty foster children. She now serves as a US Congresswoman from Minnesota–a blue state.. Her understanding of the biblical perspective on government is top of the list. She also has an urgency about the current state of our nation that is both prophetic and realistic. Michelle Bachmann’s giant status on the national stage is growing daily.
Rick Santorum– The most recently declared presidential candidate is Rick Santorum, former three-term senator from Pennsylvania–a swing state. I remember meeting Rick years ago in his office while working on legislation that would benefit families in America. He was sharp, compassionate, and seemed to understand the principles that made America great. Santorum is a lawyer who is a strong economic and social conservative. His eighteen years in the US Senate and clear set of freedom principles make him a giant who is once again flexing his muscles in the political realm.
Herman Cainis the seventh declared candidate, an African-American who would be fun to watch debating Barack Obama. Cain was a very successful business leader who is credited with turning around Godfather’s Pizzaand who currently is a radio-talk show host. Cain is a clear thinker on the issues of the day–and very articulate. He is also a giant compared to the alternative.
Then there is our current president, Barack Obama. I believe he means well and is a great speaker with a teleprompter. But we’ve learned over the past three years what some of us already knew: He is an extremely inexperienced man who is way in over his head. He came to the position of POTUS with no real-world experience; He’d never run a business of created a job; And his main apprenticeship was as a community organizer. COs don’t create jobs–they look for government monies to dole out to people. He’s continued that practice in the Oval Office to the detriment of the nation.
As far as principles go, Barack Obama’s track record shows that he is, at the least, a quasi-socialist. At the worst, he is a radical that wants to alter the American way of life. His principles are essentially anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-business, and anti-freedom. He is pro-bureaucracy, pro-Big Government, pro-wealth re-distribution and weak on foreign affairs.
Most of what he has done for the economy over the past three years has failed.
Barack Obama’s resume and principles make him a dwarf. He’s very similar to the other Democratic one-term president of our lifetime–Jimmy Carter. But Obama’s leadership failure comes at a more sobering time.
A Christian leader I trust believes that the next US president will determine world history, for evil or for good, for the next one hundred years.
Gulp.
I reluctantly agree. That makes the election of 2012 desperately important.
Don’t believe the media spin. Let’s watch and pray for a “giant” in experience and principles to rise to challenge the current occupant of the White House.
Then let’s pray that he or she will prevail at the polls–and will wisely point America back to God and greatness.