Sam the Centipede wrote:No such thing as a technicality? What nonsense! That's an example of when lawyers disappear up their own backsides and fail to understand the distinction between law and justice.
I don't think there is a distinction between law and justice. I don't think justice can ever
be measured by the result. If it could, then there would never be justice in an adversarial system because someone
be unhappy with the result. I think justice is served when the process
is followed, whether I agree with the result or not. ETA: If I thought otherwise, it would mean that I think justice is only served when I get my own way. That's not justice.
Am I happy that Zimmerman was acquitted? Of course not. Was justice served? Absolutely. How do I know? Because the people of Florida through their legislature said that Stand Your Ground is the law in Florida. The judge instructed the jury accordingly, and the jury acquitted. Same goes for the Oregon defendants. I don't have to like the result to think justice has been served.
Sam the Centipede wrote:If someone committed a crime and avoids conviction because of a small procedural failing by law enforcement or the court, that is getting off on a technicality. What else would you call it?
Due process. It's what our Constitution demands.
If all of this means I have my head up my ass, so be it.