Even in a criminal court of law, even after witnesses have testified, it is only if the defendant chooses such, they may remain silent. To not give the defendant the opportunity to present their "side" would undo the very fabric of one of our dearly held rights.
The Sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
I'm sure most would agree that these rights should always be provided in a court of law, so why is it so common place to pass judgement on someone after hearing stories, gossip and "highlights" while never speaking to the subject of scrutiny directly? Maybe ponder this a while. Maybe it will spark the realization that you may have judged without knowing "all the facts", perhaps you only knew a version of the "truth" from one source, laid out conveniently as to avoid incriminating themselves.
But this is all probably falling on many deaf ears, as we (as a society) love to vilify and castigate ... together. Why? Maybe to as a distraction so that we can avoid looking at something closer to ourselves (maybe even our self?) But I digress. We are but simple humans and we often have a pack mentality.
But next time you are invited to listen to scandalous, salacious, *exciting* gossip before grouping together to judge, convict and sentence a person, perhaps you should first reach out and hear what they have to say. SUPER important if this person is a family member, I might add.
No comments:
Post a Comment