|
|
|
|
|
|
by comrade_ogilvy
4614 days ago
|
|
|
If the case is so clear, then they will be convicted with the full rights as the rest of us, won't they? Once upon a time, I was waiting in the Illinois state supreme court room for my then SO to be sworn in as a new member of the bar. Behind me, two little old ladies were chatting. "What they did to those babies, they do not deserve a trial." The topic was the (alleged, at the time) Oklahoma City bombing perpetrators. That is an interesting line of thought, isn't it? Bad people do not deserve good trials. Obviously only good people deserve good trials. Wouldn't it be wonderfully efficient to simply dispense with the trials for all those bad people? In fact, why have trials at all? Good people do not need trials. We just let a cop or judge decide who is good or bad. The good people deserve trials, but since they are good, we can just set them free. The bad people, right to jail for you. Done! The trial system as a tool of justice rests on the assumption that even very very bad people deserve fair trials so that society can make a sober assessment of whether and to what degree they should be accountable for the particular crimes. Otherwise it is all theater. If you do not positively believe in open and fair trials for bad people, do not pretend you believe in trials at all. |
|
|
Good point, and ultimately I think you're right. It just gets irritating when the enemy doesn't have to follow the same rules.