Thursday, January 19, 2012

"I'm really, really sorrry about that murder I didn't commit..."

The other night I watched a Dateline true-crime story that made my blood boil. (Many do. But this was a special case.) The judge in the case handed down the maximum sentence, in part, he noted, because the defendant "showed no remorse."

But the man had pleaded "not guilty."

Why in the world would a defendant show remorse while protesting his innocence? More to the point, why would he be expected to? The whole construct strikes me as at least an indirect violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.Or are we saying that the minute a man is convicted, he's suddenly supposed to change his entire tune, fall to his knees and beg for forgivenesss...even if he really knows in his heart that he's innocent?

I think this might be a good place to reprise a blog
from some time ago. Or if you're really intersted in the topic, you might try this one. Or, if you're a true glutton for punishment, this one. We'll see if I can make your blood boil.


a/good/lysstener said...

I don't necessarily agree with your views on crime but I have to admit this is pretty funny the way you set it up.

roger o'keefe said...

We have very different views of who are the heroes and who are the villains in society. I'm guessing you have never been a victim of a crime. How did you come by this position?

RevRon's Rants said...

We've often heard the line that a liberal is a conservative who has been mugged. At its core, such a statement implies that the individual abandons his or her ideology out of bitterness and resentment, and I'll grant that this has occurred many times. but is it a viable path for a happy, productive life? I think not.

As it turns out, I have lost a dear friend to murder, seen my own son's innocence lost defending his sister from an attacker, and wept for my beloved god-mother when she was financially ruined by a con artist. Yet I choose not to spend my life angry at and frightened of all whom are different than me. I have passed my 60th year, yet I'm still much closer to being a "liberal" than a "conservative," especially given the absurd parameters assigned to both groups in the current political dialog. To some, such a decision would imply that I have no brain. I would, of course, disagree.

I would not willingly punish someone who is innocent, simply because others are (or appear to be) guilty. Neither would I refuse to help someone in need, simply because there are others who feign that need for their own personal gain. That doesn't make me a "liberal," any more than a willingness to do so would make me a "conservative." Neither does my unwillingness to send our children to war for any but the most clearly compelling reasons, far beyond those based in our quest for affluence. But given the choice, I would unapologetically accept the former moniker over the latter every time. And if I am to harbor distrust toward people I don't really know, it would be toward those who would be quick to discard another human being - whom THEY don't really know, simply because that questionable "other" falls outside the parameters of one's own personal experience.

I sense a blog post of my own coming on...