|
| ||
|
|
GUEST COLUMN
04/24/2006 The Landmark Case By Carrie Hutchens Roe vs. Wade is a landmark case that is held up (as example) and up-held. It is an example of our judicial system and an attitude that is as flawed as the case itself. Yes, flawed. It doesn't matter that the very person represented has come forward and stated all was not as presented. The court "found", so new information is a non-issue. Truth matters not once a court has made its decision and time element met.? Decision made -- it is the rule of law and then simply "is"? Have you ever considered this statement -- "He is guilty because the jury found him so?" A jury finding a person guilty does NOT automatically make the person "actually" guilty of the action. It merely says that the evidence (and/or performance of the attorney) makes "it appear" that the person is most likely so. That's all it does. And point here being... there should NEVER be a time limit on evidence being "presented/accepted" that proves one is innocent. There are those that would say... well then... we shouldn't have a deadline on the suggesting guilt (statute of limitations). However, there is a difference. Big one. Huge one. If someone were to say that on a certain date, even one year ago, that you drove through a stop light (especially in an area you normally drive within) -- could you "readily prove" you did not? On the other hand... What if you were found guilty of the accusation of driving through that light and "one" single day too late -- the witness and/or evidence was found that could prove otherwise? Testimony/evidence that could not then be used in your behalf? That "ain't" -- nor shall it ever be -- Justice! Justice! That thing the courts are suppose to represent and doors be open to! And what if a court puts an innocent to death? Who pays? The court? Or the innocent now dead? Oooops! But the court in the court's opinion is right because the court found this person to be guilty by the evidence presented and therefore it really doesn't matter what the truth is -- only what the court found to be the truth and it is the accused's fault for not having the best actor attorney and all the evidence/witnesses readily available upon demand? Yep, that's what it be. That is what it be, until we bring our system back into focus and into the direction it was meant to be headed. Judges are not all-knowing gods! Their decisions should not be viewed as absolutes and to heck with proof and truth and things called right and justice. If truth proves a judge to be wrong -- that should be all it takes to let an innocent be freed of unfair judgment and sentence. No innocent should ever pay the price of the evidence/proof just coming too late for any court or any judge to consider. Roe vs. Wade? It's a landmark case and lot's of decisions have been made due to it and based on it. Since it appears to be flawed, what about all those cases that came thereafter? Too late to present the truth? Judges said -- so that is how it goes? Truth matters not? Life goes on and so does dead? Maybe it is time not only to revise the landmark decision, but the very courts that made it so!
Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.
Other work by Carrie Hutchens: Media Contradicts Media Contradicting Media
| |
|
| ||
