On high priced lawyers:
Those with high-priced lawyers have a HUGE advantage, akin to playing poker with a guarantee that they will be the only one in the game with a wild card.
On justice for Caylee:
There will be justice for baby Caylee from her point of view. She doesn't want anyone hurt.
On our legal system:
Innocent until proven guilty is a good thing. It has to be balanced out though. IMO, the legal system is leaning more and more toward protecting the guilty. How many "extenuating circumstance diagnoses/reasons to withhold evidence" do we allow? Do we make it so lenient that 100 guilty people walk free to save one innocent? 1000? 10,000? That has to be balanced out against all the people who will suffer because we let the others go. How many lives will those others destroy, mentally or physically, to save the one.
Quitting now, I am starting to sound like a comic book! :wave:In my defense, Pattymarie started a very philosophical thread (awesome thread, btw).
(bold above by me)
This won't be strictly on topic. Sorry. You've pushed one of my 'hot buttons'.
I was going to chime in agreeing with tankgirl and spqr concerning the death penalty, because I feel
very strongly on this issue. I won't bore everyone by going into detail. Short version...I'm not against the DP, but my standard of proof skyrockets when it is in play. I am personally convinced of KC's guilt, but were I on a jury, if the the DP were on the table, I would not convict on even the basis of the evidence I know through reading here and elsewhere, much less on what might be admissible in court.
My feelings on the subject can be read in my post
here on this DP thread from some time ago. Please take the time to peruse.
The comment I have bolded in the quote above hits a similar sore point for me. I have great concerns about this sort of viewpoint.
I submit that the conviction and subsequent punishment of an innocent by our legal system is in itself
a crime. Furthermore it is a crime which may be even more heinous
because it is a crime committed in all of our names.
This isn't done in a social vacuum, and when we don't like the results we should not allow ourselves the coward's way out by pointing at some DA or judge or jury and saying that "they" did it.
WE did it.
No system is perfect. But the system we embrace, vote for, wave flags for, and worship with the mantra "it's the law" is
our system. Do we move towards a more perfect system by condoning more erroneous convictions, or do we do it by striving for fewer?
In your post above you say, "IMO, the legal system is leaning more and more toward protecting the guilty."
I don't know that I agree. The media we are exposed to takes great delight in showcasing trials where a defendant has some sort of "dream team", sometimes even when such a team exists only in the medias' dreams. Most defendants have no such support, and the forces arrayed against them are stupendous by comparison to what they can marshal.
Ask yourself the question you ask above. Ask it this way though. Ask yourself,
"How many innocents it is okay to punish in the effort to convict the guilty?" Answer after considering that one of those innocents might be a friend, or a family member, or even yourself.
I've heard it said that a liberal can sometimes be a conservative who's been arrested. Perhaps that may be a bit late for an epiphany about social justice and our legal system.