I just watched the most disturbing video on the news of teenage boys beating a homeless man. Some of the boys involved are now in police custody.
My question is: Why does there have to be a trial??
At taxpayer expense, we are going to see some slick attorney try to convince a jury that these boys are not guilty of something that was captured quite clearly on videotape! Or that there were "mitigating circumstances" which led up to the incident.
BALONEY! The founding fathers, when they designed our system of trial by jury, did so to protect innocent people accused and charged with crimes based on purely circumstantial evidence.
They never dreamed that a device might be created that captured images of crimes in progress--namely, the video camera. I believe if they had envisioned such a thing, they would have made changes in our judicial system. Someone who is caught in the act or who has been
captured on videotape committing a crime can be presumed guilty without the need for a lengthy trial at taxpayer expense. *In other words--innocent until proven guilty would NOT APPLY!! A trial, then, would serve the sole purpose of determining what a fair punishment would be!
I like it. What do you think??