Do you remember the Casey Anthony case about a woman who was acquitted of killing her toddler daughter. It became clear during the course of the trial that Anthony was probably a pathological liar whose lies impeded the investigation from the start. Most people outside the courtroom assumed a conviction was inevitable but her defense created enough doubt on the prosecution's case and created enough (irrelevant) sympathy for Anthony that they gained an acquittal.

In the aftermath, famous civil rights attorney Avery Friedman, interviewed on CNN expressed great surprise but then said something that has affected my view of the justice system forever: "Of course, a different jury might have found her guilty."

This is our justice system? It's not whether you are actually guilty or innocent but rather who is hearing the case?

This is justice?

I know the response is coming: "What's the alternative?" I don't have one, I admit, but I can no longer feel that the justice system deserves its name.

Views: 398

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I could imagine a system like that, followed by a jury phase (if the magistrate convicts).  The jury--who would be selected randomly, with the only disqualification being that they knew a party to the case, would have the ability to veto a conviction by a 3/4 vote.  Yes, it would tend to lead to guilty people getting off "scot free." (I never understood that phrase.) But it would be a safeguard against.

Speaking of juries, one often hears of the defense requesting a change of venue, because they fear (often rightly so) that the media has inflamed the locals against the defendant.  I've heard of unusual cases, where the prosecution asked for such, because the murder victim was profoundly unpopular in his locale.

RE: I know the response is coming: "What's the alternative?" I don't have one, I admit, but I can no longer feel that the justice system deserves its name.

...and you're just now figuring this out? LOL!!!!! We talk about the burden of proof on TA ALL the time....in a CRIMINAL prosecution the burden of proof is on the side of the VICTIM to prove "BEYOND a reasonable doubt" that the person is guilty. this is why the vast majority of rape cases with little to no visible marks never even get prosecuted. It's considered a waste of time because it's almost impossible to get a conviction. Jury trials can be tainted with and even THAT it's hard to prove even THAT.

So if you're ever raped, make sure you also get the fuck beat out of you....and even then......

No, I knew many of the difficulties of prosecution and that the system was imperfect in many ways, but that one comment laid it out as bare as it could be for me. Anyone who follows the news hears about people freed from incarceration for various reasons, and it stands to reason that for every one of them there are several other whose innocence hasn't been revealed yet.

This is what justice looks like.

http://m.koat.com/news/heavy-police-presence-closes-i40-west-at-uns...

I have been SOBBING over this story. The man who did it confessed and is in jail. I feel like someone punched me in the stomach and knocked the air out of me. I miss home. If there's one thing Albuquerque knows how to do, it's stick together. Since we live with crime in our face all the time, people pay attention. Big shout out to the 505 today. I send a big hug to this hurting family. Especially her big brother who was not hurt.

What makes it worse is that apparently the girl's father and the shooter were taking turns cutting each other off, so the father bears some (certainly a less part) of the blame.

That's how people drive in New Mexico. It's something we're used to and basically numb to. You so much as look at someone the wrong way and they are bound to mess with you.

RSS

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service