Lawyers have the task of protecting and defending, right? You have the prosecutor and defendant in trial cases. In most cases, there is a guilty person and an innocent person involved. Each has a lawyer fighting for them who has taken the time to dig up evidence and facts to present to the court. What is wrong with this? What if the lawyer appointed to the defendant's case feels the defendant is actually guilty? What if, inside his head, the lawyer thinks, "John Doe killed Jane, and I am supposed to prevent him from going to jail?" Lawyers have the cruel task of defending their clients, no matter what their personal convictions are. In this way, there is not truly justice in some cases. See, the results always depend on which lawyer presented the best case, not necessarily who the jury and judge feels is defending the truth. This, in a way, makes our legal system in America very flawed.
When asked how Judge Self keeps legal matters and his personal values separate all if the time, he admitted, "I don't." Not always can Judge Self bring himself to convict an innocent man. He allows his values to sway his judgment every once in a while. This is not entirely legal, but I must own that I felt a little relief in my heart when Judge Self confided in us with that information.
In America's beginnings, Puritan renegade Roger Williams first proposed the idea of separation of church and state in the 1630s. Though it was first rejected -and he, shunned for it- this policy became accepted later years in America, and we still to this day use separation of church and state. This makes sense because well, we are a melting pot. We do not have an official religion, because we allow our residents to believe in whatever they choose to believe. In most cases, separation of church and state is a good idea. However, I cannot escape the feeling that this deprives justice in many cases.
After all, it is like William Blackstone said, "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
No comments:
Post a Comment