Hater Humpday #9

Am i supposed to be outraged?  Because i’m not, really.

Yes, i know. The fact that that little girl is dead is chilling.  It’s gruesome.  It makes me wanna put my kid in a protective bubble and lock all the doors and declare foolish things.

I am in no way declaring her innocence or guilt.  But let me say this.  The justice system is set up in such a way as to protect the accused.  And it was the job of the prosecutor to prove his/her point.  Obviously, they failed.  Because whether she is guilty or not, her case was not perfect or airtight.  Doubt resides.

What i am a fan of is not incarcerating innocent people–as we are wont to do in this country. We even execute them.  INNOCENT people.  Call me crazy–but i would rather see her walk if there is any doubt in her case, than see her in jail if there is the slightest chance she is innocent.  Do i want murderers and rapists walking the streets?  of course not.  but you know what?  they already do–and always will.  But i do not want to live in a world in which my rights are chipped away because of fear.

Yes, it means i could be attacked.  Yes, it means that terrorists may once again mar our history.  Yes.  it makes a world that isn’t perfectly safe.  But what if it were your loved one, or even yourself accused?  Would you want fair trial, or one based in the laws of fear.  There is a reason the mob does not rule–that the law is above all else.  If you doubt it–just look at the crazy shit people are writing about Casey Anthony today.

If she did it, i hope justice will find her.  And with the way i view the universe, i know it will.

But if she didn’t?  well.

What matters, is the Rule of Law. It is the thing that defines a civilized nation–it is what our founding brothers & sisters were fighting for–that the LAW rules.   It may cold and unfeeling, but better blind justice rule than the passions of the unstable mob.

Categories: Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Post navigation

5 thoughts on “Hater Humpday #9

  1. Well said. I was getting annoyed by all the people making judgement calls on FB yesterday. We weren’t there. We don’t know. Burden of proof was on the prosecution and the jury obviously felt that there was still a reasonable doubt. Done. Let’s move on. Judging isn’t going to bring the little girl back and it’s not going to change the jury’s verdict.

    • I know–if they’re mad, why aren’t they mad at the prosecutors?

      • Because they don’t understand the rules of law in court, how the system really works, and the damn media sensationalizing everything.

  2. On this I will have to disagree, and perhaps it’s because of my profession, but reasonable doubt does not mean the absence of all doubt. CALCRIM 220 (and I’m sure I can find the similar Florida code) states:

    Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an abiding conviction that the charge is true. The evidence need not eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.

    Circumstantial evidence has the same weight as factual evidence in a criminal case, but given the very nature of that type of evidence there will be doubt. The prosecutor really didn’t do a very good job of explaining reasonable doubt, which is why I believe the jury didn’t convict. It happens, I’ve seen many juries get confused by the law (s) they are instructed to follow, but reasonable doubt seems what gets people the most. Often a jury will stay behind after a verdict is given and talk to the attorney’s about the case and they always talk about how the laws are hard to understand. It’s up to the attorneys to make sure in the closing arguements that they address the laws and how they apply to the case in a way the jury understands…..fail to do that and a jury won’t convict.

  3. Just had this exact argument with someone in the office, a very conservative co-worker, which is funny to me.

    I completely agree. If there wasn’t enough proof, you can’t convict. The same people screaming about their right to privacy are some of the same ones crowing about how she should have been convicted without substantial evidence. Irony.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 519 other followers

%d bloggers like this: