Re: Michael Jackson verdict due at 3:45 central.
I have no real idea whether he was really guilty or not (of course I have my speculation but that is beside the point I want to address).
I wonder if people realize how many people are convicted on far less evidence than what was presented against Michael Jackson. That's not to say Michael Jackson was guilty, it is simply speaking to the difference a good attorney can make in punching holes in the prosecution's case.
I fear that in our court system a lot of 'rubber stamping' takes place when the defendant can't afford the best of attornies and/or the existing attornies get a little jaded and just go with the system. The prosecution charges, or overcharges the defendant.... the defense atty then glances over the paperwork and then the prosecutor and defense atty 'agree' to a 'canned' plea agreement and then the defendant is 'sold' on it being his best alternative (regardless of guilt or innocence or regardless of the strength of the prosecutions case or ability to stand up to scrutiny).
And so the poor defendant, if he really isn't guilty, doesn't have the means to put up a fight and/or go atty shopping.
So the judge rubber stamps it and everyone moves on to the next case.
Meanwhile, in these high profile cases the attornies actually research and question the prosecution witnesses on their claims. They challenge things. They don't allow procedural gaffs to go unchallenged or consider them minor issues worthy of little more than a shrug.
The jury, expecting CSI worthy evidence, gets something far less convincing and the defense drives that point home to them. Of course if the forensic evidence is only mildly challenged, or not challenged at all (especially in the case of a plea bargain) then the jury is left to believe (or assume) it must be the 'be all-end all' of the story. The same is true of witnesses and their challenges. Little research will lead to little credibility issues being found. Again, without much debate the jury is left to believe or to take the witness at face value.
OTOH, in this world of "Law and Order" to "CSI" I feel juries are expecting evidence to be irrefutable and are looking for a smoking gun. The big money defendants can afford to hire attornies who can show that few things are absolute and who can (afford to) dig deeper into the minutia of the evidence.
But then that is also why I believe too much rubber stamping and overlooking of procedural issues goes on at the lower levels of the criminal justice system. If the i's were all dotted properly and the t's are crossed as expected then it wouldn't be so important that money come into play. The evidence could be more trusted on its face and there'd be less room for any lawyer, high priced or not, to tear apart the evidence (or witnesses).
I also have to wonder if in the issue of high profile cases if prosecutors aren't a little lax because they are used to the rubber stamping of the more normal cases that flow thru the system.
And saying all this means that I tend to think that (many) judges are not exactly unbiased. Another reason that makes the 'need' for high dollar attornies (or attornies who will do more than the absolute minimum) necessary. And of course the police are going to be biased... they made the arrest in the first place.
Or maybe I am just jaded....
Michael Jackson- Guilty or Innocent? That we might never know but the system.... Well, it just could be guilty as charged.
-Bball
EDIT: A last thought... I am one of the people who would rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent man dragged thru the system, much less imprisoned.
A further thought... I believe our school system does an extremely poor job of educating children to the ins and outs of our justice system and how it is supposed to operate.
I have no real idea whether he was really guilty or not (of course I have my speculation but that is beside the point I want to address).
I wonder if people realize how many people are convicted on far less evidence than what was presented against Michael Jackson. That's not to say Michael Jackson was guilty, it is simply speaking to the difference a good attorney can make in punching holes in the prosecution's case.
I fear that in our court system a lot of 'rubber stamping' takes place when the defendant can't afford the best of attornies and/or the existing attornies get a little jaded and just go with the system. The prosecution charges, or overcharges the defendant.... the defense atty then glances over the paperwork and then the prosecutor and defense atty 'agree' to a 'canned' plea agreement and then the defendant is 'sold' on it being his best alternative (regardless of guilt or innocence or regardless of the strength of the prosecutions case or ability to stand up to scrutiny).
And so the poor defendant, if he really isn't guilty, doesn't have the means to put up a fight and/or go atty shopping.
So the judge rubber stamps it and everyone moves on to the next case.
Meanwhile, in these high profile cases the attornies actually research and question the prosecution witnesses on their claims. They challenge things. They don't allow procedural gaffs to go unchallenged or consider them minor issues worthy of little more than a shrug.
The jury, expecting CSI worthy evidence, gets something far less convincing and the defense drives that point home to them. Of course if the forensic evidence is only mildly challenged, or not challenged at all (especially in the case of a plea bargain) then the jury is left to believe (or assume) it must be the 'be all-end all' of the story. The same is true of witnesses and their challenges. Little research will lead to little credibility issues being found. Again, without much debate the jury is left to believe or to take the witness at face value.
OTOH, in this world of "Law and Order" to "CSI" I feel juries are expecting evidence to be irrefutable and are looking for a smoking gun. The big money defendants can afford to hire attornies who can show that few things are absolute and who can (afford to) dig deeper into the minutia of the evidence.
But then that is also why I believe too much rubber stamping and overlooking of procedural issues goes on at the lower levels of the criminal justice system. If the i's were all dotted properly and the t's are crossed as expected then it wouldn't be so important that money come into play. The evidence could be more trusted on its face and there'd be less room for any lawyer, high priced or not, to tear apart the evidence (or witnesses).
I also have to wonder if in the issue of high profile cases if prosecutors aren't a little lax because they are used to the rubber stamping of the more normal cases that flow thru the system.
And saying all this means that I tend to think that (many) judges are not exactly unbiased. Another reason that makes the 'need' for high dollar attornies (or attornies who will do more than the absolute minimum) necessary. And of course the police are going to be biased... they made the arrest in the first place.
Or maybe I am just jaded....
Michael Jackson- Guilty or Innocent? That we might never know but the system.... Well, it just could be guilty as charged.
-Bball
EDIT: A last thought... I am one of the people who would rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent man dragged thru the system, much less imprisoned.
A further thought... I believe our school system does an extremely poor job of educating children to the ins and outs of our justice system and how it is supposed to operate.
Comment