Areas of grey....truth will out?

Calculating conclusion of conjecture, subjective opinion and alliteration allowed by judge as prosecution sums up case of man found guilty. Why the media circus? Focusing on the three-per-week stabbings in the capital and the social problems behind them sure doesn't sell as many newspapers.

The truth seeker's dilemma is to remain passionate about the dispassionate truth- sometimes the unpleasant, unpalatable truth; is that you can't know for sure. Your judgement can't compensate for your ignorance...you can't do the right thing, because you just don't know what it is. Are you prepared to make a potentially wrong decision, with potentially devastating consequences? Should the law be pragmatic or idealistic? Should the individual? Do you let the makers of the idealistic laws be responsible for their pragmatic interpretation...if  trusted them to make the laws in the first place, who knows better what they meant exactly than their creators? Impossible questions and emotive arguments. Do you want "beyond reasonable doubt", or something else?

It depends on where you draw the line, but with binary decisions there is no grey area. Yes or no. "Win" or "loose"..."good" or "bad"; these are merely concepts, opinions which may or may not agree with or benefit the psyche of the person holding them. Realise the facts and ignore the impulses. Not many people are trained to pass judgment, or even realise their own prejudices; considering themselves naively to have none. There seems to be a disparity with the level of evidence required...would a person charged with a "lesser" offence have been prosecuted on such evidence? Professionals facing misconduct hearings and government sponsored investigations have to establish such a high level of guilt that conjecture doesn't count. What exactly constitutes proof depends on the situation; mathematically, scientific proof is a definite thing. In a legal sense, if a certain person, or group of people form an opinion of guilt or innocence, this becomes "proven". When one can't possibly know, is "probably" sufficient basis for a conviction? Strictly speaking, no, but did that match the analytical guidelines the jurors were given?  

The media have a penchant for publicising the evils of drugs and how the accused was a heavy pot addict, under psychosis perhaps. Such was the suggestion that drugs effected his mental faculties and "made him do it"....it seems rather strange that he is not charged as being culpable with "diminished responsibility"? It also seems rather strange that while being a user to the point of debilitation, that he somehow had the presence of mind to avoid leaving any forensic clues whatsoever, yet made the rather stupid mistake of pointing out the location of the body - one mistake his mother couldn't cover up for him. Did his dog really bark to indicate the body? Does him knowing the body's location mean for sure that he put it there? Were the witness accounts untainted by their personal opinion, and influenced by police who have only one suspect and need as much assistance as they could get. If the suspicious satanic boyfriend did lead them to the body, in the manner reported by witnesses at the time; it seems very strange that nobody noticed, and that retribution wasn't dispensed there and then. Below the legal age of voting, drinking, smoking, driving or even being able to buy a lottery ticket, yet being charged as an adult. A mother whose neglect of, and conspiring with a drug addled son remains unpunished- which seems strange considering the jury's determination of the son's guilt..

When the West were told of the chemical weapons in Iraq, and it was easy to see the "mobile chemical weapons laboratories" as indicated by spy plane photos with the aid of Colin Powel's pointy stick. On paper; there sure was a lot of missing chemicals. With emotive arguments, it's all too possible to believe what you'd like to hear, or what someone else would like you to hear. The relevance of the evidence has been questioned in the light in which it was shown, but the integrity of the evidence itself was presumed infallible. The majority of the population presume the justice system to be "just" presume the motives of the system to be well intentioned. We presume the evidence to be presented to us in a fair and impartial manner. We presume that no seeds have been planted in the witness' minds by police with only one suspect matching a demographic.

Would any jury really up to the task? On the balance of the evidence presented and advice given, I don't personally  see how they could have come to any other decision. The inconclusive facts fit when taken together and set on scales where a strong inkling is sufficient. A jury doesn't let a little thing like a lack of known facts get in the way of reaching a verdict when they are told "Probably" is beyond reasonable doubt. He didn't only represent the guilty, but the piece of mind and retribution for the family and friends, the satisfaction of the media, the man the police were after, and the satisfaction of the state and crown prosecution service as justice was shown to be done. Hasn't justice been done?

In these times where the government has the power to hold people at will, this is a dangerous precedent... evidence like this is the easiest to produce. If this circumstantial case is enough to convict, how much real evidence do they have on those detained without trial? The occasional guilty person escaping justice, is it a price worth paying to maintain the illusion that innocent people aren't fitted up? With  circumstantial evidence, any fault and the whole house of cards collapses.

In actuality, I would have been dissatisfied with either verdict; guilty or not. When dealing with someone's liberty you'd better be certain, and if you're certain, you'd better have a damned good reason to be. In Scotland we have the luxury of a third way, one which more closely matches my sentiments; the "not proven" verdict.