In Defense of Defense

I just flashed back to my 7th grade English class. We watched the OJ verdict on television (which kinda seems like a poor syllabus at this point.) As I recall, my old friend Thom McHugh and I made a tidy sum of extra lunch money standing all by our lonesome on one side of the verdict straw poll (One guess, which side) while our 30 or so classmates clustered confidently and sanctimoniously on the other side. Turns out I was either very mature back then, or just stubborn in my convictions..
  Such a sense of deja vu comes not from the result itself, but from the reaction to it, and my apparent triumphant return to the wild outback fringes of public opinion. It distresses me to no end that people have such such little understanding of the justice system that they instead experience it as  reality television. They rage with self righteous entitled indignation whenever a high profile "not guilty" verdict comes in as if Sopranos just cut to black or some douchebag is talking about the Bachelorette behind her back. People want their money back guarantee and the extended warranty on the media circus they've been consuming like rubberneckers at a car wreck. At the beginning of every megatrial there is a tacit agreement between the media and the public that everyone is on board for some Jack Bauer justice. The truth is that real life is more like an independent film festival: filled with flawed complex characters and conflicting or ambiguous endings.
   Reasonable Doubt is not Dre's latest protege, it's the absolute cornerstone of our justice system. Just ask Amanda Knox, Middle Eastern women, or gays in Africa what happens if the system operated under the premise that if the police put you in handcuffs you must have done something wrong, and it's up to you to prove otherwise. Guilty until proven innocent is a dangerous road that we've been hurtling down for quite some time thanks to cable news hyberole and network tv crime procedurals that are equal parts Encyclopedia Brown and Jetsons. If Nancy Grace was the Grand Inquistor, we'd all be in jail. Seriously, every single one of us, no exaggeration.
  That's sort of the problem though. I think most people have lost the capacity to comprehend the magnitude of such situations. I don't speak of empathy for the accused necessarily, but the ability to imagine oneself in a similar situation where your literal life hangs in the balance. The best you can hope for is that the basic tenents of the system, right to a fair and speedy trial, has not been corrupted by overzealous talking heads and societal group think.
  I'll admit I did not pay the closest attention to the Anthony case, in particular. I'm aware your aunt and best friend handed down a conviction three years ago. However, it does seem clear to me that case was built ENTIRELY on circumstantial evidence, another aspect of the legal system apparently too complex for some folks to grasp. Even a mountain of such evidence is still circumstantial, which by the way, isn't useless. However, it does mean that an incompetent and preening prosecuter who assumes a slam dunk and is worried about where his book deal might come from, coupled with an active defense attorney can punch plenty reasonable sized doubt holes in such a case. Sometimes I think even the state forgets it holds the burden of proof.
   Sometimes I'm awed into silence at the tightrope of civilization we walk with Lord of the Flies anarchy staring at us from the abyss on the either side. One fucking word was the space between freedom and death. Regardless of your opinion on the death penalty or the verdict, just close your eyes for a moment and let the gravity of the responsibility of such a decision. Those 12 jurors perform the modern equivalent of thumbs up or down in the gladitorial arena. Pause for a moment of introspection before you take the the torches and pitchforks out to put them on trial too.
     The logical divide that people can't or won't bridge is the concept that it is entirely possible (in fact it SHOULD be far more common than it is) to believe it more likely than not a crime was committed and still render an accquital. (Wave to our old pal reasonable doubt.) Every system is flawed and every society has an essential decision to make about which inevitability is easier to live with and which should be weighted against: Guilty people occasionally going free or innocent people occasionally going to prison. As it turns out, I made my choice way back when, even if I wasn't fully aware of it at the time. It's an often unpopular choice. It's sometimes a difficult and painful choice, but I truly believe it to be the correct one. Civilization does not crumble and burn with a single injustice, but rather with a broken, unjust and corrupt system. Sometimes the right decision isn't the easy one folks, and sometimes  the greater good doesn't make you feel good at all.