Reform the Legal System

Our system of justice is not workable.

The Alec Baldwin trial proves it.

He got off on a technicality.

Of course, he really didn’t get off; instead the charges were dismissed.

But in essence, he did get off because now he can’t be recharged.

This illustrates the main problem with our legal system: it allows for loopholes.

Cunning lawyers, like Alex Spiro can exploit these gaps.

They do it all the time.

They parse words.

The goal for them is to win, not to arrive at the truth.

For them, truth is what they say it is.

For them there is no objective truth.

That’s one of the problems in law today.

Which is why we need something new.

We should never be afraid to try something different.

There is always a new and improved version of anything.

That includes the law.

What I propose is to replace the current trial by jury with a discussion, a boring discussion of the facts.

We have something like this now,; it’s just that we don’t use it.

What we use today is primarily a winner take all system. We declare people either innocent or guilty. We turn the light switch on or off.

Maybe that’s the wrong approach.

Maybe we should declare people likely guilty or likely not guilty.

Maybe we need ambiguity in the system.

This doesn’t mean that someone doesn’t get punished. Of course people will get punished..

What we are saying is that we might be wrong.

In the case of the Alec Baldwin, trial, instead of throwing out all the charges because of a presumed Brady violation – the God Almighty Brady violation, the Alpha, and the Omega of our existence, the guiding principle that the Founding Fathers omitted from our constitution, the comprehensive reason for being that the Bible leaves out – let us proceed with the trial, knowing that this violation occurred, making amends along the way by, including the evidence that was omitted, to arrive at a general conclusion.

This conclusion can always be modified in the future.

The conclusion will be that Alec Baldwin was likely culpable or not likely culpable.

In the future world, we will close the door on Alex Spiro, Alan Dershowitz, and their little tricks of loophole exploitery.

All evidence will be admissible.

And we are not going to treat the jury like imbeciles.

If we are saying that jury cannot or will not have the mental maturity to decide what is prejudicial information, then we need to abandon the jury in favor of a different type of deliberating process

Perhaps what we need is a tribunal of professional jurors who are chosen from a wide pool of professional jurors.

Maybe the amateur jury is a thing of the past. When the Founding Father wrote the Constitution, they were living in a simpler era where technology did not play a role.

Perhaps the modern age, its technology and intellectual demands, has outpaced the intellectual capacity of the average juror.

We also need jurors who have the mental maturity to overcome emotional arguments that unscrupulous lawyers often present in court.

This took place in the recent Karen Read trial in which the defense offered up this absurd conspiracy scenario (which seemed to be a synthesis of various Richard Gere movies, including Brooklyn’s Finest and Internal Affairs, ) to suggest that there was reasonable doubt as to whether Karen Read had killed her husband.. This paranoia was magnified by an avalanche of Karen Read supporters who hung outside the courthouse, effectively intimidating people who rationally thought that she had killed her husband.

We need jurors who can resist such intimidation, and who can understand, reasonable doubt,

Reasonable doubt must be backed up by a reasonable explanation based upon evidence. Reasonable doubt is not just you thinking up a wild scenario in your head.

I wonder seriously whether the average juror understands this.

I don’t think they do.

Consequently, the entire system needs to be reformed.

Sincerely,

Archer Crosley

Copyright 2024 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved