09-14-2024, 06:31 PM
(09-14-2024, 06:09 PM)FlyingClayDisk Wrote: Correction.. the "end" NEVER depends on the media...EVER! Seldom depends on the prosecutor, and ALWAYS depends on the JURY. The JUDGE is a mere "tool" of administering "JUSTICE" and order. If the judge ever becomes more than this, then he/she is legislating from the bench.
Trial by media is anarchy.
In a weaponized justice system, all of the above are against you, but the larger net is cast upon the jury. If we lose the objective nature of a jury, then we, as a nation, have truly lost the wishes of our Founding Fathers in this nation.
Perhaps you were being sarcastic, but I wasn't. And, perhaps I misunderstood. If so, my apologies...otherwise, I stand firm.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that the media shouldn't have any place in this... but the government/media combine insists...
I think the point of the judge is to ensure that it's the law is correctly applied. Prosecutors, being theatrically motivated, always goes for the most they can... justice be damned. We have 'defense attorneys' who ostensibly want to offer their client the full benefit of not being 'railroaded' or 'abused' by prosecutorial privilege and entitlement.
The jury can agree or disagree... the judge ensures that it the process is executed properly, in accordance with the standing 'constitutional' principles of the law... the prosecutors simply want to score a 'win.' The rest is all add-on... enter the media.... who reports with inclusions of bias, inflammatory rhetoric, editorial activism, and government 'talking points.'
There was some sarcasm in there... glad you noticed.