Ever hear an LEO say “We need less funding, weaker laws, and nicer judges?” No, be they from Los Angeles to Moscow, police invariably say that they need “more money, stiffer laws, and tougher judges.” For this is their point of view.
But if you are on the other side of the fence, public and private defenders, a very different viewpoint emerges.
Police who form opinions as quick as anyone else, then become emotionally invested in them, especially if they are wrong. Officers who lack objectivity, see only what they want to see with scant evidence, and who have learned to use “pat” testimony in court, even though untrue, to help a conviction they think is warranted.
They can also point to huge differences among prosecutors. Some who lead grand juries around by the nose to indict whoever they want. Some who will railroad an accused person over something petty, while another will just blow it off as nothing. And how in many cases, prosecutors are replaced, sometimes more than once, changing the rules of the trial before it has even begun.
They also see that “expert witnesses” for both sides are often as not just “hired guns”, who will testify to whatever they are paid to testify.
And both prosecutor and defense counsel very actively try to load the jury with people of low intelligence, more impressed with emotional argument than facts. It has been proven that juries will acquit guilty people who are attractive, and convict ugly people who are clearly innocent.
And a jury can turn on a dime because of a unintentional facial expression by the defendant. Which is why many defense counsels arrange for defendants to be given tranquilizers before the trial, so they just sit there with a blank, but attentive expression on their face.
On top of it all, judges can be utterly predictable or unpredictable. In practice, they are much like referees, and you know how often fans who can see exactly the same play truly believe the referee messed up.
The bottom line is that even if everyone plays by the rules, and are fair and objective, it is often very hard to convict someone of a crime, because there is just nowhere near the amount of evidence that is needed for a reasonable conviction. And no matter what perspective you use, if a conviction happens in such cases, it is only because something or things went very wrong. Even if the person is as guilty as sin, unless things went by the rules, injustice has happened.
Justice is found in the process, not the result.
Very interesting post....and certainly supports my take on the matter of jurors in the Casey trial...and concerns about attorneys having a say in appointing jurors.
I know that Casey was known to ask for sedatives while in jail. And might explain her controlled demeaner throughout the trial. For a woman known to not have control of her emotions she certainly had no problem doing so during the trial...might very well have been drugged prior. And no wonder we thought the jurors were lamebrains...apparently they do pick those who are just that. Would your husband attorney agree with what's said in that post Reagan???