Tomorrow I intend to blog about an issue regarding trials and in particular the way that in our current system the trials occur in the media long before the actual trial takes place. However, to set that up, I want to draw your attention to a post by humorist Scott Adams on the problem of Trial Redundancy.
I know very little about Scott Adams other than that he writes the Dilbert comic strip and that he has a blog. I have been to his blog a few times now and find that it is often humorous and that at least a couple of times he has blogged about ID and the evolutionists stranglehold on the public education system. (Much to the chagrin of the "evolution is a fact, not a theory" crowd.)
Anyway, I read this post by Scott Adams that, while humorous, actually brings up an issue that needs to be considered.
I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of celebrities who have two trials for every one alleged homicide or molestation. First there’s the criminal trial, where the jury inevitably acquits him because of the high burden of reasonable doubt. Then there’s the civil trial and its lower burden of proof where the families of the victims try to make some cash out of the deal. Two trials for the same crime.
You and I are paying for this redundancy with our tax dollars! I say we band together as concerned (and cheap) citizens and change the law so that one trial handles the whole shebang. It’s easy, really. All you’d need to change is the verdict options. For example, juries could have the following choices:
100% Guilty Kill him in a highly entertaining fashion and
give all of his stuff to the victim’s family.
Probably Guilty Just give his money to the victim’s family.
Slight Chance Set him free to date women who have inexplicably bad
He's Guilty judgment.
0% Guilty Execute the prosecuting attorney
It’s the last one that’s the real money saver. Before long, you’d weed out the prosecutors who really shouldn’t be in those jobs wasting our tax dollars anyway. It’s not a crime to attempt sending obviously innocent people to jail, but it should be. My plan would right that wrong too.
If my proposal doesn’t convince you to vote for me in the next presidential election, I can only assume you don’t make those decisions based on the issues.
Just his thoughts,