<$BlogRSDUrl$>

9.12.2003

Skepticism

For most people, it is a natural thing to doubt. Some of us are very good at it. I, myself, am a very discriminating person. I don't mean this in any prejudiced or bigoted sense, but more as a sort of cautious intellectualism that evaluates facts carefully and personally rather than accepting them straight out as legitimate. This sort of thing has certain amount of cynicism as well in this day and age, because it seems like everyone from the telephone company to the President is trying to fool you. So it is understandable that a person could surf by this page and think "this is probably just here because another convict is trying to get out of their deserved punishment."

So for those who think that doubt is healthy approach to this sort of thing (as I do), I ask you to consider the events both leading up to Kirstin Lobato's trial and the trial itself, not as proof of innocence, but rather as proof of her inability to obtain justice within the court system. I have found that, in this case, it is the justice system that deserves a skeptical examination, more than the accused.

Looking at the evidence on Kirstin's behalf is one thing. Looking at the facts and noting that her case was treated unjustly is another. Without judging that which you cannot know - whether she is guilty or innocent - you can still analyze the events of her trial. I'd direct your attention to one example: a forensic expert would have testified to the impossibility of Kirstin committing the murder in question. Another example is the prosecution's central witness being a person who had a history of doing anything she could to lessen her own sentence. Outside of the prosecution or defense, the medical examiner's report likewise portrays events on a timetable that make it impossible for Kirstin to have committed the crime.

Yet none of these points were ever brought up (for the jury) during the trial. They should have been, except for the ineptitude of Kirstin's court-appointed defenders and the prosecutor's relentless hunt for a conviction. From the prosecution's deal to get a witness on the stand who had forged letters to a judge in an attempt to get her own sentence reduced, to the public defender's inability to turn documents over in a timely fashion (not to mention admitting to the judge that he was daydreaming during the trial), there is no evidence that Kirstin Lobato received the fair trial she had a right to have. That has nothing to do with innocence or guilt. It has to do with a system that failed to render proper justice, and anyone looking at the course of this trial would easily come to the same logical conclusion.

The penalty for this failure is an innocent woman in prison, but for those who are skeptical of this, at the very least it can be seen that the events of this proceeding did not meet any reasonable standard for a fair trial.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?