Well, now we see riveting examples of how someone can be indicted for murder, be acquitted due to the lack of hard evidence, become medianized (colloquialism which means to be aggressively processed by the media) to a level of mass panic, and be offered an insane amount of money to tell the real story. Ah, but to lie again or tell the truth-that is the question! Even Shakespeare would fancy addressing Gettysburg with the same idea as Lincoln. Only, neither would understand that if the person confesses, they don't have to worry about being tried for the crime again. This is due to the variances of double jeopardy from state to state.
But recently, we've come to a crack in the system. Doesn't seem fair, now does it? So what should be done? Obviously, there needs to be a new law or bill that punishes a criminal for not telling the whole truth to begin with so that everyone's lives aren't put on hold for years and costing tax payers 5-6 digit fees, I guess this is for the lesser fairness (for lack of a better descriptive).
Unless there is a precedent to this kind of acquittal that provides a lucrative future for someone like Casey Anthony, we can see a worn moral fabric of a you lose-you win bonus at the end of the rainbow. That is... if there really is a rainbow. I don't know. Makes me glad that there is a higher Judge to which none of us can be acquitted unless He says so. And in some of the words of Abe Lincoln, "... It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced..." Not a dubious statement with the intention that everyone gets what is coming to them, even if it was addressing a civil war and the deaths of so many at the time. Law is law.
Is this big idea echoing how much more we can sleep with these unlawful, immoral and non-
consequential secrets under the pillow? Your take?
