Even I don't always agree with my opinion


Bill Gates For The Defense

Posted June 26, 2008 by jim young in Lifestyle

– jim young

“Not only must justice be done, it must also be seen to be done.”

                                   – Gordon Hewart

Suppose you committed a crime. Or, for the sake of argument suppose you didn’t commit a crime but were accused of it such as the cases of Steve Truscott, David Millgard, Guy Paul Morin or more recently Anthony Hanemaayer.

Who would you want representing you in a court of law in your time of need?

Currently your options are to be tried by jury or tried by judge.

I’d be worried that even if you could find “12 of my peers” to form a jury, I would end up being tried by 12 idiots.

I guess I would choose to be tried by jury if I was counting on winning my case based on human emotions and what ever sympathy I could squeeze out of the jury.

And I would choose to be tried by judge if I thought I could best win my case based on a point of law.

Either way I would want the best lawyer around. Someone much more expensive than I could ever afford. Vincent Bugliosi, arguably the best attorney the world has ever seen comes to mind.

Because that’s what it really comes down to isn’t it? Who’s got the best lawyer.

Bugliosi was better than Manson’s lawyers. (Or any lawyer in just about every case he was ever assigned to.)

O.J.’s Dream Team was better than Marcia Clark.

And while justice may be served 50% of the time, justice could just as easily be served to that degree of accuracy with a coin toss.

In his book “Until Death Do Us Part” Bugliosi admitted that wining his case hinged on the theatrics that he would play in the courtroom in his closing statements.

Truscott, Millgard, Morin and Hanemaayer were all originally convicted – not because they were guilty and not because justice was served but merely because they had incompetent lawyers who were unable to properly defend their clients.

And I’m not even worried about lawsuits of libel from these lawyers for saying that. By definition it’s a lawyer’s job to ensure justice is served. In these trials justice was NOT served – ergo – their incompetence.

But what other options do we have? Perhaps it’s time our judicial system finally joined the 21st Century and really went high tech.

Let’s enlist the services of people like Bill Gates and Vincent Bugliosi to develop the ultimate Trial by Software Computer Program.

The Prosecution and the Defence would both be permitted to enter their evidence, sworn statements, scanned photos even audio and video transcripts and the computer would spit out the verdict just moments later.

There would be no concerns about a juror with an axe to grind, a judge who had a fight with his wife that morning or one lawyer grandstanding and trying to outperform his “most honourable colleague”.

It would be Joe Friday’s “Just the facts ma’am, just the facts”. And what a novel concept THAT would be.

– 30 –



    You make some good points. I know I would take trial by computer over twelve of my “peers”. Peers , HA! , twelve losers they forced to come to trial . Twelve losers who weren`t smart enough to get out of jury duty. Twelve losers who may now become sequestered , have to eat hotel food and are forced into uncomfortable chairs for maybe ten hours a day. That`ll make em` happy. Someones gonna pay and it`s the poor bastard in the defendants chair. Twelve losers , and do we know if at least one of them passes his day by strapping on mom`s wedding dress and jerking off to the The Jefferson`s re-runs all day. Gee , do the lawyers even ask that? I think the biggest advantage to a computer trial would be that , sometimes , SOMETIMES a woman might be found guilty of SOMETHING and maybe , just maybe , they wouldn`t be allowed to use the ol` ” munchkins by proxy ” defence. The only time the munchkins defense should be allowed is if the the defendant is from OZ or indeed , a munchkin.
    One more point. Trial by one`s peers , HA , I love that word ,can be very risky due to the simple fact that the human race takes great glee in others suffering. We are the only living creature on earth that does that , but that`s for another day. The simple proof to this is the rubber-necking at particularily horrific car crashes. I really like the guy/gal who says , ” Oh! , isn`t it awful!” Bullshit , you`re creamin` your jeans just like everyone else , secure in the fact it`s not you bleeding and dying.

    Final point. Don`t let anyone kid you. The most powerful thing on earth is , even over great wealth , is , well , power. Can you imagine the tiny wheels in the ” jurors ” tiny brain realizing for the first time in his/her miserable excuse for a life he has POWER! More power than the police , more power than the lawyers ,Holy Christ! , more power than the judge!!!
    The scary part of this is , you will stand more chance of being found guilty than aquitted.

    I`ve watched prominent , criminal defence lawyers being interviewed on MSNBC and they state that in interviews with past jury members , those who aquitted felt they hadn`t done their job and were deflated. Those who passed a guilty verdict felt elated and proud. Gee , that`s reassuring. Are you listening Bill and Vincent?


    You make some good points yourself. And if anyone doubts them and wants to find out the level of intelligence of some real-life jurors for themselves – all they need to do is watch some of the interviews of the jurors in the O.J. Simpson trial.

    Not much wonder O.J. was aquitted which, by the way, still does not necessarily mean he wasn’t guilty.

Leave a Response