Peterson Verdict

I didn't want to do a post about this until I read this EXCELLENT piece on WorldNetDaily about how emotions have too much play in our justice system. Here's a snippet:

The jury is now deciding Scott's fate. Allegedly to help, the jury was subjected to what has to be the most ludicrous, and sad, aspect of the law. Prosecution and defense are each allowed to address the jury to tell how they "feel" about the crime, how they "feel" about the victims, how they "feel" about the accused.

Who cares?

It was exhausting and demeaning to read of the tearful accounts of lovely memories of Laci by her friends and family, and insulting to hear from Scott's side that he was a terrific little boy who saved a bunny's life and helped old people.

Reporters say the purpose is to affect the emotions of the jurors and to influence their decisions.

When did emotion become part of a legal decision? Why should it be? Facts speak for themselves. Emotions can excuse anything. I thought that justice was blind – to make fair and, if you'll excuse the redundancy, "just" decisions.

We hear it after every grisly murder or after umpteen bodies are discovered. Reporters swarm to neighbors and friends for a reaction about the accused. The answers are always the same.

"We got along great."

"He couldn't have done it."

"He was such a nice kid – never a problem."

Uh-huh.

Read the rest here.