*dramatic eyeroll*

[conuly]

I'd be more touched if, y'know, I had actually defended anybody. Which I didn't. I never took a stand on his conviction, I never said that he should've killed and gotten away with it, all I said was that, according to the CNN article, the reasons behind his sentencing were ridiculously absurd. Any one of us could face a wrongful conviction and bad sentencing if "well, he didn't look emotional enough" were considered, and yes this means me.

Edit: I'll post a calmer reply when I'm... um... calm. Right now I gotta study. Djusk' a.

Comments

[mortaine.livejournal.com]

Meh. I didn't get a chance to mention this previously, but lack of crying is one of those things that can either help or hinder a defendent, and it's entirely subjective, but a jury does have some subjective decisions to make:

If male, the defendent should not cry-- it makes them appear weak and guilty. Obviously, that strategy backfired, so the new rule will be "don't cry unless a baby/infant/fetus died."

If female, the defendent should cry-- a LOT. In cases of infant abandonment (the typical "left newborn in a garbage can" kind of abandonment), black and latina defendents got longer sentences, which were sometimes as high as life if they didn't cry. The wording describing their reactions tends to be very, um, subtly racist (calling the defendent "cunning," rather than intelligent, or implying that she's not ruled by reason). White defendents, not surprisingly, got lighter sentences, down as far as suspended sentence plus parole if they wept openly during testimony.

It's unfortunate that it is this way, but I suppose it's good advice: if you're accused of a crime, cry frequently, whenever they mention the victim, whether you feel anything or not. Apparently, it's the only way.