America suffers from superficial assumptions about not only our criminal laws, but the details of person cases. We base our facts on headlines and sound bites, a thin stream of ignorance for evaluating someone’s guiltiness or innocence. We forget that the jury is sequestered away from the news, and that we in the public have diverse information than what the jury hears. Even the same information is expressed differently to juries. Our sight of a trial from the outside is a watered down, over-simplified and twisted mess that bears little resemblance to the environment where these significant decisions are made. As sad as I am about the entire case, I’m grateful we don’t let our emotional, insensitive mob at large decide much of anything.
Victims and Accused Criminals
I’ve seen dozens of proclamations for what the Zimmerman verdict means, as if the whole 300+ million citizenry of America (or the 1000 people running the show if you believe in conspiracy theories) met mutually in Florida and agreed on a plan for how to ruin our nation through a single judgment. Perhaps the most obvious oversight in our outrage is that a jury trial puts the burden of judgment into a handful of public. The six or twelve associates of a jury are alone empowered to judge, which explains why most attorneys, victims and accused criminals avoid them.
how the prosecution used, or didn’t exploit it. Forget whether you agree through this critique or not, the outcome of the case means the jury probable did agree with some of it, and that’s the entire that matters.
There is no law that can guarantee everyone, or even a majority’s, intelligence of justice will be carried out.
A chance to build their case and it’s not about what you know or believe but what you may prove to the satisfaction of the members of the jury.
Instead we contain laws that attempt to do the heavy lifting in providing a machine that gives everybody a chance at justice.
If you read even a cursory critique of the prosecution’s case against Zimmerman you’ll find sensible questions about the actual evidence in the case
In America we believe in realistic doubt, and what a burden it is against instant justice. Sensible doubt means the job is on the prosecution to prove blame, not on the defendant to prove purity. The protection has the much easier job. Even the presentation of conflicting evidence and testimony may quickly create reasonable doubt on a jury, and there was plenty of conflicting testimony in the Zimmerman trial.
I am aware of the deep troubles with racism, guns and crime in America. I know why people feel outraged by the verdict and I feel grief for everybody personally involved. But I won’t let one decision decided by six Florida people define much of anything for me or my state. I desire most of all for us to use our brains as much as our hearts in sorting out what the verdict means and what work we have to do to make our nation safe for everyone.