I wholeheartedly believe in the premise that someone is innocent until proven guilty. The principles of the American justice system run through my blood. However, if you want to watch me blow an artery or two hand me some sickening news like this USA Today article:

Judge throws out confession in Jessica Lunsford case
The confession of a man charged with kidnapping, raping and killing 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford isn’t admissible in court, but the discovery of her body can be used as evidence, a judge ruled Friday.
John Evander Couey, a 47-year-old convicted sex offender, gave the confession to detectives, but also told them that he wanted to consult a lawyer. He wasn’t given the opportunity to do so.
…
Such a police misconduct is not a mere technicality. A technicality is signing an order in the wrong color ink,” Circuit Judge Ric Howard said in issuing the ruling Friday. “This is a material and a profound violation of one of the most bedrock principles of criminal law.”
…
Defense attorney Dan Lewan had also asked the discovery of Jessica’s body be inadmissible in court because Couey told authorities where to find her….

The fact that a confession that led to the discovery of this nine year old’s body is not admissible as evidence is absolutely sickening! And the gall of the defense attorney to ask that even the discovery of Jessica’s body be excluded from admissibility is criminal.

I understand that in order to maintain our rights procedure must be followed. If I were a suspect I’d expect no less. My problem in all this lies in what our judicial system calls “proven”. Someone confesses, that’s a fact. How can you have any more solid proof than that? In this case the facts can, and were, easily verified. What proof do you need? He did it, he confessed. Why in the world should he be allowed to walk away because of improper procedures or the violation of his rights. I agree that the violation of his rights is an offense that needs to be dealt with, but tell me should it be a get out of jail free card?

Wouldn’t our judicial system be far more fair and impartial if, in the case of overwhelming evidence (confession or witnessed by many witnesses) we allowed the trial to proceed with all evidence in tact. Then after the trial put those that violated the rights of another on trial. Aren’t these really two separate criminal offenses? Shouldn’t they be tried as such?

Calm down Dave

Share on Facebook