What is justice?
Justice, in simplistic terms, has been described as getting to the root of truth, both sides moving toward uncovering the light. Yet, that is not what occurs, rather, we have individuals, forgetting they have a shared mission, and we wind up with bi-partisan justice.
We offer tonight a quote, and will give you reference to the article, and invite you to not only share this with others, but to share with us your reactions. We hesitate at this moment to pontificate as to our views on this quote, before we hear from you…………….
We point you to a particular quote in the article, as follows:
“In 1998, Judge Keller wrote the opinion rejecting a new trial for Roy Criner, a mentally retarded man convicted of rape and murder, even though DNA tests after his trial showed that it was not his semen in the victim.
“We can’t give new trials to everyone who establishes, after conviction, that they might be innocent,” she later told the television news program “Frontline.” “We would have no finality in the criminal justice system, and finality is important.”
Gov. George W. Bush eventually pardoned Mr. Criner.”
NO FINALITY. I’M SORRY, I MAY JUST BE A BIT CONFUSED, WHY WOULD YOU WANT FALSE FINALITY OF ALLEGED GUILT? DO WE NOT LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY? HOW THEN DOES THE ABOVE QUOTE MAKE SENSE:
“We can’t give new trials to everyone who establishes, after conviction, that they might be innocent,”
No, of course not judge, we wouldn’t want to give the benefit of the doubt to innocence would we? Much tidier to just lock up the might be guilty.
Additionally, the article notes the judge is a devout Roman Catholic. Now I ask you, why not make some multi-level comments? Does not the Catholic church decry the protection of innocence?