|
Parent Article: Patrick Thompson Trial Underway |
|
Hidden with code "Duplicate post" |
|
Proving a broken system |
by Bob Illyes
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jul 2006
|
There is much argument in this thread about the "system" being broken or not. A public instutitution is rarely fully good or fully broken. For this reason, we need to avoid pointing fingers at individuals in the system without reasonable evidence. If we do otherwise, we are no better than the folks on the other side. Answering injustice with injustice will not make things better.
It is possible to know that something is badly wrong with the system without knowing what the source is.
When it was discovered that half the folks on death row in Illinois were innocent, one didn't have to know more to realize that the system that convicted people of murder in Illinois was terribly flawed.
When one looks at the disproportionate number of African-Americans in prison, one does not need to know more to realize that the system is failing badly. To claim otherwise would be racist.
I was one of a handful of people at Patrick Thompson's first trial and also a member of the larger group at his second. Given that the investigating police offcer did not collect enough evidence to show Patrick definitely guilty or innocent, and that there was no witness to the claimed event, I expected the jury to be unable to decide one way or the other, and to go with a presumption of innocence. This is not what happened at the second trial. It is not necessary to know more than I have just stated about the case to know that there was something badly wrong with the performance of the justice system in Patrick's case.
But what is wrong, in Patrick's case and more generally? Do current proceedures not adequately assure a presumption of innocence? Is unspoken racism at work? Or is it perjury for other unspoken reasons? These questions can be answered.
Bob |
