Once upon a time a black man was walking home in the deep American south near to where a brutal crime had been committed. Some white policemen came along and were concerned about this black man walking near the crime scene so they stop him. Lacking any evidence they chose to beat the black man to get him to confess, because they knew he had done it. The black man insisted he did not, despite the beating, and refused to confess. So the police men arrested the black man and took him to jail and incarcerated him, because they knew he had done it, despite the lack of evidence. The local prosecutor took a look at the case file, and he found no evidence, except for the policemen’s statements but he proceeded to bring them to trial, because he knew he had done it, despite the lack of evidence. The prosecutor argued a masterful closing describing how he knew the black man had done it and the defence lawyer pointed out there was no evidence but the judge sent the case to the jury anyway, because that is the fair solution and the people deserved a verdict, because they demanded it, and they knew he did it, despite the lack of evidence. The jury reviewed the case and they knew he had done it despite the lack of evidence, so they did the ‘right’ thing and convicted him despite the lack of evidence. History has taught us that this was repeated innumerable times and we know it was wrong because of the evidence, and we are ashamed. A black man is killed by a white man and the white man claims it was a case of self defence. No one sees the crime in any real way. There is no evidence that is in any way conclusive of anything, but the prosecutor proceeded to bring him to trial, because he knew he had done it, despite the lack of evidence. The prosecutor argued a masterful closing describing how he knew the man was lying and the defence lawyer pointed out there was no evidence that contradicted the white man’s story but the judge sent the case to the jury anyway, because that is the fair solution and the people deserved a verdict, because they demanded it, and they knew he was lying, despite the lack of evidence. When the jury found the white mad not guilty, because of the lack of evidence the people rose up because they knew he did it, despite the lack of evidence. Maimonides said "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death." Was he right?
Posted on: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 05:28:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015