Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Alan MacHett" <machett AT ibiblio.org>]

In reference to Shea Tisdale's message:
> Alan, why does this bother you?  Isn't this how the justice system is
> supposed to work?  The juror in the story indicated that the prosecution
> failed to make the case and left a lot of ambiguities.  Would you rather
> them have gone ahead and found them guilty anyway?
>

In a word, yes.

[caveat: Not having been present for the trial, I am of course making
certain assumptions.]

I have little faith in our justice system.  It is predicated on the trust
of 12 "peers".  In 18th century America, in practically any smallish
community, that concept works as it was intended.  The people in a
position to know one best, or at least have heard of you, are the one's
best suited to judge one.  And somewhere along the way we gained the
notion of an impartial jury (impossible, really, but the intent is
honest); that's an idea I support as well.

But today's justice system is littered with the verdicts of juries swayed
by emotion or the barest hint of a shadow of a possibly-maybe doubt. 
Should I ever be foolish enough to find myself standing trial, I most
likely will waive my right to jury trial and trust my fate to a judge or
judges.

Again, I don't have the full facts of the case before me, but I read
"unconcious girl" and "it was videotaped".  What more do they need?  Women
suffer far too many abuses on this earth; better to give them the benefit
of the doubt.  I say kill the little bastards.

-Alan