Should a jurist not be, not the best applier of the law or the cleverest interpreter of legal quibbles, but a steal probe for the testing of hearts and a touchstone against which to assay the gold that every soul contains in greater or lesser amounts?- Count of Monte Cristo. Justice is blind. Laws are rigid. As a juror, should you make your decision based on the ridgidness and unbendability of the law? Like the lawyers and judge ask you to in any given case? (Zimmerman trial is a perfect example. Guy kills kid with weapon and claims self defense.) Or should you make your decision based on the reality of what actually happened? Including those the judge asks you to disregard? (How can you disregard something that is fact, just because of a loophole in a law?) The law doesnt always define wrong or right. Zimmerman killed a kid. Wether black, white, brown, or rainbow, we all know deep inside it was wrong. And now he is paying for it. The jury got it wrong. But its not their fault. Its the system. As a juror, dont listen to the judge, listen to the hearts. Yours and the person on trial. Listen to the facts, wether youre asked to disregard or not. Justice is blind. But we arent. I was a juror once...and i admit i might have made a mistake. I didnt follow my heart. I followed instructions.
Posted on: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 05:23:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015