Some of the more well-known widely disseminated information on criminal cases that come to mind is the O. J. Simpson debacle, the Jon-Benet Ramsey confusion, and the Casey Anthony convoluted criminal action.
Every adult in America, and many from points further removed, has an opinion as to what the correct course of action should have been in each of these cases. For those who thought, or think, O. J. and Casey were guilty, how can you think that? You know nothing of the evidence except what some person you are highly unlikely to know has told you. You don’t even know any of the people involved, or the evidence, or lack thereof, presented for or against the stated individuals. It is impossible for you, or me, to make an informed judgment in these cases, but we all tend to do it.
Why is it that anyone can write their highly opinionated version of events about a criminal case and we all believe it to be somewhat akin to the Gospels? There is a case now involving the shooting of a young African American by a Latino self-styled neighborhood protector. Forty five percent of America think it was justified, while forty five percent more feel it was murder. Ten percent are still unaware as always. What do hardly any of those with opinions really know about the situation? It is probably true, but not necessarily so, that the young man is dead. All that we know beyond that is purely whatever someone tells us, who wasn’t even there.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty by a jury of one’s peers?
No comments:
Post a Comment