|
 Our judicial system is one of the very cornerstones of our freedom and many liberties. The presumption of innocence is at the heart of any criminal proceedings taken against us. No one, regardless of his or her wealth, position in society, or the amount of power they wield, can accuse us of a crime and deny us due process of law. That process always presumes we are innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. I want to go on record as believing this country has, by far, the most enlightened and fairest judicial system in the world. Having said that, I would like to comment on what I see as a flaw in that system. Sirhan Sirhan murdered Robert Kennedy while tens of millions of us watched in horror via our TV sets. He did it, he admitted he did it, we watched him do it; there was not one iota of doubt in any sane person's mind that he did it. Yet it took nearly a year of gathering evidence and more than ten million dollars in trial and incarceration expenses to PROVE, in a court of law, that he did it. To me, this is absurd. Cases come to trial each and every day in this country that are almost as absurd as that of Sirhan Sirhan. Because everyone is entitled to a defense, a man caught standing over a dying body, after sixteen people watched him fire a gun he still holds in his hand, into the man's body, he is still presumed innocent until a court of law finds him guilty. If the trial were held within the week, I would find no fault with this presumption of innocence. When it takes months and sometimes years to bring the matter to a conclusion, I see it as a flaw in our system of justice. A fifteen year old girl, living in my home town, recently murdered and robbed a woman in her seventies. She killed the woman with an assortment of pipes, wrenches and whatever else she could find in the house. Having killed the woman, she then spit on her body because she felt the woman had unnecessarily delayed her robbery attempt. We know this because the girl admitted as much during a video taped confession. Despite the video taped confession, this girl was presumed innocent. In an effort to find SOME sort of defense, her attorney claimed the confession shouldn't be allowed into evidence because she was suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome at the time she confessed. Apparently, her attorney felt killing and robbing the victim was unduly stressful for the girl and she should have been allowed time to recover before being questioned by the police. ???????? A few years back, there was a rash of plane hijackings. In most of these, the hijackers surrendered peacefully after landing. In every case, the hijacker was presumed innocent of what several hundred people had seen him do and what he, himself had admitted doing. ??? More than a decade ago, a man went to city hall in San Francisco and shot and killed the mayor and a city councilman. Although many dozens of people saw the act committed, the man was presumed innocent and allowed his day in court. In a desperate attempt to find SOME defense for his client, his attorney claimed the man was innocent by reason of insanity because he had eaten too many Twinkies that morning and his high blood sugar content flawed his thinking. the man was acquitted of the crime.????????? Now, we have the John Walker case. Despite having been captured with a rifle in his hands and living among a group of terrorists conducting a jihad against America, he is presumed innocent of any crime against his country, which his parents insist he loves dearly. At this point in my life, I won't even guess what defense his attorneys might come up with. Perhaps he was on his way to Boston when he somehow made a wrong turn. Perhaps his having been given a private audience with Bin Laden so dazzled him that he went temporarily insane with joy. I suppose it's even possible that his parents put so many Twinkies in his backpack that his mind ceased to function properly. Then again, maybe he wasn't fighting for the terrorist's agenda after all. Maybe he was fighting for the Taliban's concept of 'a woman's place' in this world. Nope! I won't even try to guess what defense he might use. One thing he has going for him is the presumption of innocence and the fact that his lawyers can take months or even years to prepare a defense. There's always the possibility that little green men kidnapped him from his home town he loves so dearly and flew him to Afghanistan. Once there, these little green men introduced him to Bin Laden and the rest we know. Am I advocating we discard the presumption of innocence? Of course not. What I am advocating is something else that's guaranteed in our constitution.............a speedy trial. Within the week following a hijacker's having been taken off a plane in handcuffs, hold a trial. "Did you hijack the plane?" "Yes, your honor, but..." "Guilty. Next case." A girl confesses to having beaten an old woman to death. The following week, a speedy trial is held. "Did you beat that old woman to death like you confessed to having done in that video tape?" "Yes, your honor, but...." "Guilty as charged. Next case." Sirhan Sirhan killed Robert Kennedy and is brought to trial the following week. "Did you shoot and kill Robert Kennedy?" "Yes, your honor but..........." "Guilty as charged. Next case." "John Walker, were you fighting with the Al Quaida and the Taliban against the country you were born in?" "Not exactly, your honor................" Who knows what the verdict might be????????
 
 |