When a defendant is found "not guilty," the first thing moronic pundits and reporters like to say is that there is "still no justice" in the case.
I'm sorry, I thought justice was served when jurors deliberated evidence and came to a verdict, whether that verdict is guilty or not guilty.
But that's not true, and the harsh truth is that most of us do not believe that "justice" has been done unless that justice includes a guilty verdict.
I can understand that the family of a victim believes there is no justice for them when a trial ends and the defendant is adjudged not guilty, but is there not justice for the defendant on trial? Is it not justice that a jury of her peers determined that the government did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt?
Because we expect jurors to find people GUILTY! We may say we believe in the presumption of innocence but did you know that 80% of all jurors that appear for jury duty are pre-disposed to guilt?
That's the way we like it though.
Isn't that justice?
13 hours ago