Justice System Failure System
Defense Attorney vs Writer
I have always wanted to enter the legal system as a defense lawyer and have made this well known, especially over the last few months. Why, you may ask? For me, the answer is really quite simple. I believe there are far too many people being convicted of crimes they have not committed. But, most importantly, in the past, the conviction rate was far worse compared to the present.
Now, here I am at age fifty-three, wondering if it’s really worth going back to school to pursue my law degree. I have multiple sclerosis (MS), have pursued writing as a passion (looking for freelance work), I had a fulfilling career including owning a national business, and I have to wonder if I can do more by writing about this topic vs being a defense lawyer.
I applied to a law school in my area and was accepted via a two plus three program. Two plus three for me would actually mean three, because I have the two and if you don’t know what this means it’s an accelerated law program skipping the traditional four-year undergrad bachelors program. Instead, it’s a two-year paralegal and three-year law degree.
The reason I think writing about our justice system would make a larger impact is because to be blunt it’s downright corrupt and when something is corrupt, you cannot fix it, period. So, the alternative is to save myself some money and write about it.
Get Desiree Heltzel-Baylin - "Justice Not Justice"’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Where do I begin? This is the begin question and one I have blogged about many times before and made countless blog posts about many topics on other blog platforms. I feel like I’m cheating on my other blog subscribers, but I will keep it simple here in the beginning.
Defense lawyers have a job and it’s a tough one because the jury comes into a case already being tainted by the outside world. Social media, news reports, and countless other sources. Can you imagine being on trial for a crime you did not commit and facing a jury already tainted by the media and the news deeming you guilty?
Then, you have the prosecution who is supposed to. Now notice I said “supposed to” find you (you being the defendant) guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” What is “beyond a reasonable doubt?” I’ll tell you. It’s when the prosecution has to convince the jury there is no other explanation that is reasonable that could come, other than the evidence that is presented at the trial. Now, I can almost say with certainty that most times, the evidence used comes from social media or the news.
Then you have the almighty “burden of proof” (the Latin term “onus probandi”) where the prosecution must provide evidence for claims that are made. For example; if you were to steal a car, the prosecution must provide evidence you were the person involved in stealing the car.
Where does this evidence usually come from these days? I don’t have to tell you, do I? Now, I am not one to make excuses or try to get criminals off the hook, but I do not wish to see people falsely accused either. I mean, how many people can look like other people and have been falsely accused on video, as looking as another person via social media?
In short, what I’m saying is I have little faith in our justice system. In fact, I think a bunch of preschoolers could rewrite our laws and do a better job. We have a lot of work to do, and it starts right there in that courtroom.
Jurors need to be educated on exactly what “burden of proof” and “beyond a reasonable doubt” means. I highly doubt all thirteen do. The prosecution definitely will not tell them and the defense will try to explain it. The prosecution will turn around and try to twist it, leaving the jurors totally confused. Is that fair, absolutely not? This should be cut and dry. It is our legal system and there should be no doubt about what the law is, period.
We are America and this is where we are “supposed to” stand and again notice the words “supposed to.”
