JF, well the case was rather high-profile because it's the assistant sheriff's son. Of course, the case also has all three of the "Sex, Lies, and Videotape" thing.
I know you're thinking this is just the exception in the rule, that our jury system works most of the time, and though it's not perfect, it's the best alternative we have. I agree with all that. I'm just fearing the trails being blazed by bad decisions like these, and how the bad precedent will be set for many future cases. Many sleazeballs will now beat the rap by using the same arguments, or relying on the embarassment of the victims to keep their mouth shut, knowing they're going to be dragged through the mud by the defense attorneys. After all, if even a video failed to convict these three punks, how is any girl going to get justice for the vast majority of rape cases that amount to only a "he said, she said" argument?
I think it's fair to say that for this issue, one bad apple spoils the bunch. "Reasonable doubt" has now turned into a game of slinging mud and seeing what sticks, and no one knows how to clean up the mess left behind, much less taking responsibility for doing so.
Tenchusatsu
P.S. - One suggestion I might make is change the way the jury members are picked. I hear logical guys like me are often rejected because lawyers want to be able to sway the jury with emotion and slick words. Therefore, make the jury selection process up to the judge. Or something like that. |
