|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
THE WORLD HAS GONE MAD
(4/15/2007)
What Do the Schiavo & Duke Lacrosse Cases Have in Common?
What do the Schiavo and Duke lacrosse cases have in common? A rush to judgment! And once that judgment was made, it seems that some parties felt "that was their story and they were sticking to" no matter what evidence was provided that the original accusation and/or appearance might be defective and in error. To those sticking to it, it was as though the original suggestions were written in stone and all else was flimsy argument to be discarded without consideration. Why be bothered with what might be the truth? In the Duke lacrosse case, the fact that the alleged victim was a female and African-American that fell victim to the white, rich, frat boys and that DNA would allegedly prove it, was played to the hilt. In the Schiavo case, the suggestion that Terri Schiavo was brain dead and on life-support, giving the impression that she was merely being kept alive by machines, was played to the hilt. A taxi driver came forward with an alibi for one of the accused in the Duke lacrosse case, but his word was dismissed in the eyes of those pushing to convict these young men? He must have had an agenda or been bought off or mistaken, I guess. He couldn't be right. However, other evidence verified the accused and the taxi driver had been/and were telling the "absolute" truth from the very beginning of the investigation. Why was the truth so readily ignored? In the Schiavo documents, there are statements that Terri Schiavo was responsive and had chance to improve through therapy. There are documents that indicate that she did speak and that Michael even reported that she did. Yet, all this was dismissed and any suggestion of it came to be labeled the fantasy of the zealots, or like suggestions and like labeling of any that tried to bring it to the attention of the courts and public? Like the taxi driver, any who could cast doubt were not taken seriously? Our judicial system may have once been considered the best in the world, for any imperfections it may have had, but can that now be claimed? Safeguards are a necessity when people are involved in making decisions and/or taking actions that affect others, because we are only human and therefore imperfect. We can and do make mistakes. We can make mistakes even when we are trying desperately not to. That's because we are human as opposed to god-like and all-knowing. Law enforcement officers enforce the law, but they neither make them or rule on them. Otherwise, officers would be out there deciding the rules as they go, arresting people for breaking them, and deciding the guilt and punishment on the spot. What need would we have for the legislative or judicial branches or even attorneys, judges or the news media? It would be cut and dry. Said and done. The best of officers can make mistakes. Initial evidence gathered can make an innocent look "totally" guilty. So we have courts, where an officer, or officers, are suppose to have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than them simply say and it is found to be. Safeguard attempt! Laws made by the legislative can be challenged in court. Safeguard attempt! But where is the safeguard attempt when it comes to the prosecutors and judicial system that claims the need for their independence to keep us all safe, protected and unabused? Who protects us from them, when they are wrong? What the Schiavo and Duke lacrosse cases have in common includes the rush to judgment and evidence disregarded. What they don't have in common is that the Duke lacrosse case participants had an attorney general that got involved, unlike the attorney general from Florida that didn't want to get involved and didn't. (Not until he praised the judges after the fact.) No, unlike Charlie Crist, Attorney General Roy Cooper stepped up to the plate and reviewed the entire case in spite of the fact it was a touchy one, since the accused were white and well-to-do and the alleged victim was African-American that wasn't. Attorney General Cooper took his position seriously and because he did, three innocent young men were vindicated. We should all take a good look at how easily these three men were railroaded and how "FEW" people it took to be a part of it. We should also take a look at people in the media who were a part of shouting "guilt" (or implying it) prior to the trial of three innocent young men. Perhaps they, too, should look at themselves and realize just how much influence they have on public opinion, and therefore, what a responsibility they have to be truthful, fair and accurate. Terri Schiavo was not on life-support machines nor was she brain dead any more than the three young men from the Duke lacrosse team were guilty. However, the media often said (or implied) that she was. So while Nifong and the legal system may have taken a hit with Attorney General Cooper's announcement, so did the media. What the Schiavo and Duke lacrosse cases have in common is the rush to judgment and evidence disregarded. Thank goodness they don't have attorney generals in common. At least the young men will now have a chance to get on with their lives. Terri doesn't have that chance. However, there is still the chance she and her family will be vindicated. The Duke lacrosse team members were.
Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.
Purchase merchandise regarding this columnist
|
|
||
