It is sort of like the OJ trial in that everyone believes that she is guilty of murdering her daughter. The problem is easier to see here though. In this trial the jury did not have to suspend belief. The prosecution simply did not meet the burden of proof. They settled for conjecture with the entire case being build on circumstantial evidence. That can be enough if there are certain other qualifiers such as definitive proof of how and where the child died and that did not exist.
It has always been a part of our legal system that we risk the guilty going free in order to try to prevent the innocent from being imprisoned. Sometimes that preference leads to situations like this but it is still better than the alternative.
The best I can say is to imagine it is your child on trial and you know he or she is innocent despite all the evidence that is piled up. Wouldn't you want the benefit of the doubt?
No comments:
Post a Comment