|
You know, I think there's a good chance that the accused are guilty and deserve a hefty sentence...but the administration of justice is not something people get to vote on. People vote on (state) laws or who makes the laws in Congress - and I have seen your agreement upthread that it makes more sense to write to congress about this. I'm not writing to have a dig at you personally, but to point out the fundamental issue here.
But it's important to remember that no matter how horrible a crime is, everyone has the right to a fair trial and to mount the best defense that they can. It's a constitutional right that protects everyone, whether or not they're nice people. Similarly, there are constitutional protections about fairness in sentencing and there are already statutory guidelines to inform judges about that process.
In cases like this, sending mail to a court demanding a particular verdict or sentence will only result in the mail being shredded or at least thrown into storage by the clerk of the court. It never gets near the judge, and rightly so. If we assessed guilt or punishment on the basis of popular opinion we'd be missing the whole point of having courts and laws to begin with; the result would be something much closer to a lynch mob.
It really bothers me that so many people rely on emotion instead of reason when talking about legal cases. If I ever found myself falsely accused of a horrible crime, I would seriously consider waiving my right to a jury trial and opting for a bench trial (just judges instead of a jury). I would feel a lot more confident of the truth being perceived by a judge who would carefully study the facts and explain their finding in writing using logic, than by a jury which could be swayed by all kinds of emotional arguments from a prosecutor, even if they were warned not to consider those issues when drawing their conclusion.
|