Wednesday, Oct 01, 2014
Columns

The courtroom verdict vs. the public verdict


Published:

Let me begin by saying the death of Trayvon Martin was a terrible tragedy and my heartfelt condolences go out to his parents.

As the comments continue from all sides of the human spectrum it is becoming increasingly evident just how much this country is divided against itself. To hear some of the more radical statements from rappers and celebrities, they can be dismissed for what they are.

However, when I hear from so called lawyers questioning the jury system and the work average American juries do, I question their integrity. They sound like the anarchists that I expect to expel their vile hatred of this country and seize on any incident to put forth their mantra of hatred and divisiveness.

When a lawyer says she is a social engineer I have to question that statement and ask what a social engineer is. It shows me that there is a lack of understanding, and more than that an ingrained belief that there is no justice except the justice that someone believes is justice regardless of the facts.

Why then bother with a trial at all? If the masses believe someone is guilty regardless of the facts just execute them or put them in prison for life. Some of these social engineers should read some history about such cases as Sacco & Vanzetti, to name one where minds were made up before a trial and the yellow press was stirring emotions as they did in this latest case.

The question is, did the facts as presented prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant in the hearts and minds of the jury? The verdict answers that question. Even if there are some who disagree, they should accept the system did its job.

For those who want the blood of the defendant, let them remember that situations change and it could be another person facing judgment who will then be convicted in the court of public opinion and not a court of law. Our judicial system was devised to prevent what had happened for a millennia whereby the emperor, king or dictator had absolute power over the people and they alone could decide who lived, died or rotted in prison.

In 1789, the storming of the Bastille by the French peasants was to free the handful of political prisoners, but also to proclaim the people's right to fight against tyranny. Then it degenerated into a blood bath called the "reign of terror" that slaughtered thousands of innocent men, woman and children in the name of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.

It took years to regain the senses of the public. That is exactly the path of self destruction that some so-called leaders are advocating for. They have no substitute plan for governance, no plan for justice other than mindless clichés. They have nothing to offer except moral decay and a blood lust for whatever they determine is "justice." 

What they should be remembering is the fate of those hotheads demanding the spilling of innocent blood who in the end lost their own heads.

Comments

Part of the Tribune family of products

© 2014 TAMPA MEDIA GROUP, LLC