Thursday, November 29, 2007

Pre-judging Issues

I used to watch the Jerry Springer show. When he would have a guest on his show, the audience would always be very sympathetic to the guest, when that person was telling his side of his relationship with someone. The audience knew darn well that the guest would soon bring out the other person, he had been talking about, and the other person would tell their side of the story. But that didn't stop the audience from showing sympathy for the guest.

Then when the other person came out and was always completely humiliated in front of the audience, by what the guest said about the other person, the audience would invariably change their tune and be sympathetic for the other person when the other person told their side of the story. This is pre-judging the situation before having all the facts.

People do this all the time. I find it almost impossible to sit down and talk to anyone about a subject but what they interrupt me before I can even get my point across and they prejudge what I want to say before they have even heard all I have to say on the subject. People do this because they really do not even want my point of view but just want to foist their opinions on me. Men are much more inclined to do this than women. Females are always better listeners than men are.

Men are too "macho" about things and want to be the one in control and therefor want to dominate the conversation by being more forceful in their views. Who is doing most of the fighting in Iraq right now, men or women? If I could suddenly, turn all the men in Iraq into women, how many people do you think would die from this day forward? Probably none. Women, as a general rule, do not kill adults. They are destroyers in another way. Read the rest of my articles.

The average court room is a "three ring circus". There is this prosecutor who only wants to condemn a person and send him to jail. He loves to do this. He is the type of person who finds fault with people a lot. He is good at seeing the evil in others so he loves to prosecute and punish what he sees is bad people. He really does not care what the truth is, he just wants to win because, really he just wants to use his position to "jump start" his future into a higher political position.

The attorney for the accused is there to defend the client against anything the prosecutor can throw at the accused. He also does not care want the truth is, he just wants to win the case so his fame will bring more clients and money. Remember the money.

The judge is like the referee who makes sure these guys obey all the rules in this "three ring circus."

The jury is supposed to listen to all of this stuff, pro and con, and decide if the accused is guilty or innocent.

Now, all the prosecutor is after is CONVICTION.

All the defending lawyer wants is ACQUITTAL.

All the judge wants to do is clear his docket (cases to get done with).

Now the jury. Upon these people is the job to decide the fate of the accused. That is the biggest burden in all of this spectacle. The problem in all of this "three ring circus" is that these people have not been given all of the truth, in the case, to even come to a fair decision in the first place.

The accused has been given no opportunity to give "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help him God," in the first place, even though the court (judge) has ordered him to do so. When the prosecutor demands an answer from the accused, the accused is ordered to give a "yes or no" answer, when a "yes or no" answer is not "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" so help me God.

A "yes or no" answer never tells the whole truth because there are "extenuating circumstances" which the accused needs, to tell the truth, and the jury needs to "know" in order to make a fair decision.

Juries all over America are finally taking it upon themselves to take these "extenuating circumstances" into consideration, much to the consternation of prosecutors and judges and lawyers.

No comments: