Everyone, and I mean everyone seems to have watched episode 2 of the BBC documentary 'Life and Death Row' this week if the Twitter-sphere is anything to go by.
This particular episode followed a young man from Georgia accused of homicide called Guy Heinze Jr.
It is difficult to make any real lasting comments about his case because we only see the parts that the documentary showed us however there were several key issues that seemed to have the Britons riled and crying out "Injustice!" "Injustice!" against the 'swift justice of the American legal system'.
Issues inclusive of:
- The Golden Rule: the burden and standard of proof that the prosecution proved, beyond all reasonable doubt (and this seemed to be the same with American law) that the D committed the crime. Anything falling short of this should lead to a decision of not-guilty.
In the documentary, many people felt afterward that the prosecution in no way appeared to satisfy the standard of proof that should be necessary for such a high-stakes case (the stakes being his life!)
-Justice is seen to be done- Was Mr Heinze merely a scapegoat in this; the obvious conclusion despite the fact that the Defence raised key questions about the evidence provided (or lack thereof). Can a justice system really be deemed credible if it simply grabs anyone close by in order to demonstrate the might of the law; such a carefree attitude undoubtedly would lead to miscarriages of justice.
-Match fixing alot of people had alot to say about the substitution at half-time of the dissenting juror instead of leaving it as a hung-jury. For the sake of time, money and (perhaps for the Defence, the element of surprise) they quickly deposed one juror for another for malleable one. Could this not be seen as...fixing? as...swaying verdict? As Sophocles once debated with Crito: who are we to follow? the one man with knowledge and understanding...or the many?
"But the many will kill us"
No comments:
Post a Comment