Observations About The US Justice System (From The Great Throne Of Thinking!)

This is going to be one of these posts that's about exactly what it says in the title, isn't it?

First of all, I hope you all had a Merry ChristmahanukahkwanzaFestivusholiday! Now, let's go down the pipes of discovery and get down to buisiness!

As a Christmas gift, my extremely nice but exponentially nerdy aunt got me a book called You Be The Jury. I'm hoping that I don't have to explain the premise to you after that incredibly cryptic title, but I'll humor you.

Each chapter contains a court case, beginning with a breif outline of the case, then giving you arguments from both the plantiff and the defendant, and concluding with three (usually drawn) pieces of evidence. Pretty basic, and not an all-encompassing deconstruction of the US Justice System, but hey, I'll take what I can get.

So, while various coagulating Christmas foodstuffs slinked their way through my intestines, I read the first case. It was about a guy who reluctantly let a golf course company set up a commercial golf course by his house, supposedly gets thunked with a ball, and sues. So I pondered for a few seconds, even before seeing the evidence, just to get a general idea of where I stood. I immediately gravitated towards a guilty verdict. Now, the question I bring you today, folks, is this: why did I immediately jump to conclusions? Assuming many of you would do the same, I guess I should ask "why do we always jump to conclusions?" I began to form a hypothesis, along with what was already forming in my intestines.

Even though the law says to assume one is innocent until proven guilty, American society, whether by subconcious or concious influence, generally assumes that a person's guilty.

So then, as my movements began to quicken, so did my thoughts. The reasons I came up with?

1. The Media

Now, let me be clear here: although I have a few quibbles with the media, by no means is it their direct fault that I sat on this porcelain soapbox and was biased towards a guilty verdict. They have a residual effect on it, sure, but it isn't born from ignorant or malicious intent. You see, solely by doing their jobs, they contributed towards this bias.

How? Well, when kidnappings, murders, rapes, extortions, and other incidents happen, which they seem to do increasingly, the media's job is to report on it. And, more often than not, the case ends with the defense being guilty.In fact,combing through my (admittedly small) backlog of high-profile court cases, I can't think of a single case where the defense was declared innocent (excluding a single case that I won't talk about here involving a person named after a certain drink derived from citrus fruits. I think, along with several other people, that that case is as valid as what kind of conditioner my great aunt's second cousin used on the second day in January, 1987.).

As such, we are pre-conditioned by example to assume a guilty verdict in a case.

2. People Who Sue Over Video Games, French Fries, Coffee, and Apendages in Mexican Dishes Are Stupid, Usually.

It's hard to take people who sue seriously any more, after all of the above. Even people who do sue for legitimate reasons, such as this guy, are clumped with the loonies and the money-hungry vultures of society.

As such, even though our justice system is fair on paper, and certainly fairer than other countries', it's still flawed by the human element. So, here's my non-rhetorical question of the day: If the flaws in our justice system are real, how do we fix them?

Well, I'm feeling a little flushed. I hope you felt moved by this post, and not bowled over by it. Seat-er, see, you later.

SIDENOTE: 1st official Pedal-With-Pete board meeting in 3-ish hours! Woot!

Tomato