Casey Anthony, for Anyone Who Wants to Know

The court of blog-opinion fell down on Casey Anthony's guilt last year. The court of Facebook and office-opinion today confirmed her guilt, but the actual court found that there was reasonable doubt, enough to question whether she did it.

While I'm not sure if Casey Anthony did kill her child, I think the decision was just. I'd like to put this case in the context of others we've heard of recently: the stories of caregivers sent to jail for the deaths of children when they were indeed innocent (see this week's Frontline - downloadable for free in podcast form). Reasonable doubt is designed to prevent wrongful conviction and the fact that the jury decided to not convict, even when the evidence seemed strong, demonstrates that this system can work. In other words, having a criminal get away with a crime on occasion is not so bad as wrongly punishing the innocent.

Of course, the other side to this is that it's okay to punish an innocent person when more bad people are caught (so, if you catch a bad guy who would hurt 100 people but also convict 2 people who don't hurt anyone, you've done good). Those who find the Casey Anthony verdict wrong come down on this side. I don't.

Here's the thing: one of the best things about American democracy, the thing I can really get behind, is the idea of innocent until proven guilty. I'm no lawyer, so I can't get into the nitty gritty of the law, but from a theoretical perspective, this is one of the neat things that writers like Locke and Hobbes made possible. By stating that there is no one person who is more good (both from a moral and class perspective) than another, they paved the way for a society that (at least in theory), says that people are not inherently good or evil. So, when bad things happen, you have to give people the benefit of the doubt. This is an amazing thing because it means that you have a whole world of justification open to you as well as a range of things that are good and things that are bad, and you are neither until a group of your peers decides this. And even then they aren't calling you good or bad, they're saying that you broke the law and must be punished for the benefit of society.

When you don't come at justice from this perspective, you start filing people into categories that are dangerously restrictive. The reality, of course, if that we do file people away into very troublesome categories, but because the theoretical background of the United States is so imbued with this neat idea that people start out as citizens worthy of legal protection, we sometimes do the right thing, like increasing voting rights or supporting marriage equality. Were we to take this idea away and decide that a woman like Casey Anthony is inherently bad, then we start down a road I'd rather not explore.

So what I'm saying here is that while a woman might have gotten away with murder, there is something that makes me feel just a wee bit hopeful that our justice system can actually decide that reasonable doubt exists and fall on the side of deciding that someone is not a bad person.

Of course, if you ask me about the Dominique Strauss-Kahn story, I'll write something completely different.

A Throwaway Post on Being Pretentious

I put something up on Persephone on BSG and Liberalism, and it's going to turn into a bit of series, but I have so much crap on my plate right now it might have to wait for another couple of weeks. I also have something planned on ghosts and Detroit (oh yes!). But something that I'm really realizing is that writing pretentiously takes some fucking time, yo. So here's a post. I say it's throwaway, but I'm sure we all think of it sometimes.

I struggle often with this term pretentious. My majorexboyfriend gave me shit for it all of the time. I was too pretentious, he said, no one can identify with me, he asserted, and after four years, I started to believe it. Thank goodness for Lady Blog and tumblr, full of wonderfully smart people who will pat you on the back for bringing Foucault into the situation, or else I'd be saying The Hangover was a great move (it's not).

According to Dictionary.com, to be pretentious means to attempt to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed. According to that definition, what I write is not pretentious at all. I have the knowledge and the background to support what I say. I have read the cannon in political theory, I have been tested, and I have defended my work. I haven't risen to the level of PhD, but I know my shit pretty well. I don't think I am affecting anything at all.

Of course, there is another definition that is not addressed here, and that is the derailing definition. It's not yet in derailing for dummies, but the cry of pretentious is used to tell those who think deeper that they ought not to go there. The definition says that pretentious people affect knowledge that they don't have, which leads me to believe that if you call someone pretentious when they are calling out things like sexism or racism, you are saying that they don't know what they are talking about. What's more, pretension has a bad rap in society. Pretentious means Hyacinth Bucket, it means asshole fauxminists who talk the talk but don't walk the walk, it means people who talk down to others in annoying ways without regard for their experience. It suggests privilege and all things wrong with the academic life.

I also think that it disregards the good. You all know here that I am uncomfortable with pure theory at all times. Not to say that that's not useful. A critique of my BSG and Liberalism post suggested that I might want to crack open Locke and really read it again, and that's a fair point. High theory is incredibly important. It boils things down to essentials and in those essentials allows us to see the forest for the trees and come up with something really unique.

I've said this once before: I call this blog what I do because I want to say from the get-go that I don't know everything. I want critique. I want discussion. Locke isn't always right. I'm not always right. To say something is pretentious not only derails, it also takes us down a notch and plants our feet on terra firma and allows all of us to recognize where we get it wrong.

Pretentious is a Janus-faced creature. In mythology, Janus is the god of beginnings and transitions. Pretentious, I would like to think, dwells here: pretending to know what we don't know but also knowing enough to see the possible. With this definition, though, comes peril. To affect knowledge one doesn't have can lead to false conclusions, but the philosophical process is always tenuous. Derrida knows what he is talking about because he has read and studied, but some of what he says requires a double-take, a sense of questioning as to whether the conclusions make any sense. Should we approach anything we read with the idea that the person writing doesn't know what they are talking about?

Am I pretentious? I would hope that I'm always aware of this risk. I don't always know what I'm talking about. That said, doing this sort of work is important. After all, liberalism and representative democracy as we know it might not have gotten its start if not for a pretentious little text called the Second Treatise on Government.

Something that is not pretentious to clear your palate:

Wow. Just fucking wow.