"For an educated middle-class woman to face public arrest and a strip search is almost unimaginable"

[sabrina 1]

127. Let me see if I can explain it more clearly.

It is easy to claim to have the best judicial system in the world, which on paper at least, at one time, this country was justified in doing. It was never perfect, but it was better in theory at least and became somewhat of a model for other democracies to study. Of course OUR system was based on other, some of them, ancient democracies, some of the world's historical great thinkers and humanitarians.

You ask me if this woman's alleged crimes should cause us to throw away all of our principles regarding due process because what she is accused of is so egregious.

My answer is that if we only adhere to the principles we claim to stand for when we are never faced with any challenges to test our commitment to justice, then we have no system of justice.

You seem to be saying, and I may be misunderstanding, that if someone is accused of a terrible crime, we should throw away our principles and due process and treat the accused according to our emotional reaction and our distaste for what they are accused of.

That would mean having no judicial system, no due process at all, since most crimes people are accused of are shocking and despicable.

That is where we are tested as to our claims of being committed to remaining a civil society, to justice, rather than revenge. And it seems we don't stand up to that test far too often lately.

If this woman, or anyone else is accused of a crime, and people have been accused of far worse crimes, mass murders, child molestation etc, she is still entitled under OUR laws thankfully, to due process, to a trial, to evidence being produced to make sure she actually IS guilty before we rush off to lock her up and throw away the key based on emotion.

Perhaps you prefer the way they do it in some countries. Someone is accused of a crime, there is justifiable outrage and the accused is simply dragged off to prison without much chance of defending themselves, or beaten to death, or flogged, hung, stoned, or whatever.

I prefer our way.

But I worry sometimes when people say 'but she abused her maid'! Meaning what? I have not seen any evidence first of all so I can't say yet whether she did or not. But even if there is some credible evidence of such abuse, I am still saying the accused should have a fair trial where the evidence can be tested absent emotions, and if found guilty THEN convict her. But only after the accused has been provided with due process. Many innocent people have been convicted when the evidence SEEMED to incontrovertible. To take such a risk is unacceptable in a decent society.

I know, it's not popular these days to demand we adhere to our own laws rather than rush to judgement. But I will continue to do so because the alternative is so scary a prospect I find it inconceivable. I am perfectly happy to allow our judicial system to do its job.