I saw a newspaper. The headline was interesting. A suspected murdered was caught. In this case, he probably really was guilty. What's the evil fnord?
The evil fnord is "Anybody proclaimed as evil in a headline is automatically a criminal." Usually, the victim is accused of a real crime and probably guilty. When the criminal is a political prisoner, this adds a presumption of guilt.
For example, the State media engine proclaimed that Blagojevich was guilty. However, he was legally barred from publicly explaining his point of view. That always seemed corrupt to me. Why are defendants in a criminal case barred from publicly explaining their defense, while the mainstream media loudly proclaims their guilt? The mainstream media is privately-owned (State-owned), and may do as they please. However, that does corrupt a jury trial. The prosecutor's viewpoint is publicly explained, but not the defendants.
That's an evil fnord I hadn't noticed before. Many obviously-guilty criminals are denounced. Then, when a political victim must be shamed, the takedown seems credible.
Friday, June 11, 2010
State Public Humiliation
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
In the film Walking Tall ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0351977/ ), the main character (Chris) is accused of busting up a casino dealing drugs.
Despite the advise of his lawyer, he fails to take the plea bargain, dismisses his lawyer in the court and defends himself.
By defending himself he can say much more than his lawyer would be allowed.
Despite the judge's protestations, Chris gives the background to why he busted up the casino, shows his scars from a previous attack and makes a political speech.
Court rules prevent lawyers/defendants talking about unrelated incidents.
However Chris thought that the fact that in a previous incident he was cut up with a knife by casino employees relevant and mentioned it.
The thought the film was making a point that plea bargains are a form of lousy justice and some times you are best defending yourself if you want the jury to hear the full story and the whole truth.
The film was trying to say the courts don't allow juries to hear the whole truth.
I didn't expect such intelligent commentary from a film such as this.
By the way the film Walking Tall is loosely based on a true story.
How much, and which parts, are true I don't know.
How can there be justice in a court when most people are there because they are paid? A financial transaction with legal experts = inevitable corruption.
Post a Comment