There will always be armchair jurors.
One key problem is their disconnection from the actual events combined with their own beliefs and experiences (or lack thereof) where prejudgment sets in before evidence is considered. Finding someone with a truly 'open mind' is a difficult task.
Even then, the process of choosing, presenting and interpreting the available evidence is highly influenced by people with vested interests. Thus, the first casualty will be objectivity. The media, for example, while purporting to be providing a service to the community are still bound by the commercial necessity of business and, as such, media reports must be viewed with this in mind, IMHO.
Come to think of it, this same battle occurs in the courtroom. Neither side are really interested in determining the full and accurate scenario, just to present a story that will win their case. Cherry-picked details from the body of evidence, combined with passionate story-telling will be the ammunition from the side that should lose while the side that should win struggles with a body of truth that inevitably includes flaws which should be inconsequential - but are jumped upon and blown out of all proportion.
I suppose the only real difference between a court of law and the court of popular opinion is that a court of law has a formal structure of proceedings where rules of conduct are defined (and, hopefully, enforced) and a case is presented from both sides.
From that point it would seem 'justice' is a matter of perspective, not law, and the cynic in me feels it may be just as well decided by the toss of a coin.
___________________________________________________
Quote from: tellomon on Today at 11:33:10 AM
My act was not premeditated, as the DA would have you believe.
My act was "predicted".
___________________________________________________
That is a very important distinction.
It is parallel to the situation where a student is being bullied in the playground. When the bully goes too far, the student reacts in a manner that is wholly predictable - but that student doesn't deliberately set out with the intention to take that action.
In fact, this whole situation has a number of uncanny parallels to schoolyard bullying...
The bully, being familiar with the 'system' plays it right up to the edge, harassing the target.
The target does not react for any number of reasons - whether it be because of threats, peer pressure, the fact that they want to be a good citizen or they have reported the encounters and are relying on the 'system' to protect them - and they continue to be tormented.
The bully goes one step too far and the target reacts but, from across the playground, all the teacher sees is the target lashing out, attacking the bully.
From that point on, the extensive period of consistent, relentless bullying experienced by the target counts for nothing (being a boring blurb from one individual that wouldn't make the first ten pages of the evening paper) against the single moment when they cracked which produced a very dramatic picture that would have appeared on page one of an extra.
-brum6y
