As we can see in the movie, the counterargument to the prohibition of bail for those charged with premeditative murder is that if the crime is a "specific crime," the charged person is not a danger to the overall community. Now, I see this as incredibly ridiculous. Anyone who plans out another's murder may be planning out someone else's, and the court system just doesn't know it. How can someone who has already planned and executed murder not be capable of just doing it again? Thinking about it aside from the emotionally powerful film and this specific case of Shirley Turner, my opinion still doesn't change. Before being proven fully innocent, someone charged with premeditative murder, specific or not, should not be allowed out of prison on bail or for good behavior, or for any reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I totally understand your feelings on the issue, Kelly, and I think that the film (to put it mildly) really drives that stance home. However, keep in mind that our (and the Canadian) justice system's premise is supposed to be not to prove one's innocence, but for the government to prove your guilt. While we as viewers may be convinced of Shirley's guilt, she was never actually put on trial. At the very least, the stance of 'no bail, ever' raises some troubling concerns about the rights of the accused... doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteI agree with your sentiments, concerning a person not being allowed out on bail, but it is important to note what Charles said about the way the system works. I think the largest problem here is the absence of a speedy trial or a orderly system of events in any case. While a person shouldn't be assumed guilty, a murder case which puts a child's life on the line should take a certain degree of precedence that would circumvent the 2 years of paperwork and find a way to have the trial actually happen.
ReplyDeleteThat is an excellent suggestion and seems an eminently reasonable proposal to me, Ethan.
ReplyDelete