Friday Morning Conundrum

A group of people in Philadelphia cornered and beat a child rapist this past week. The prosecutor there has declined to prosecute the members of that crowd. In my first glance at this, I say "Right On" and would hope this becomes a norm there.

On the other hand, I hear that an innocent man was also beaten by a mob about the same time and there is a real problem with prosecuting the guilty offenders and letting the first group off Scott free.

This highlights the part of our laws that maintains that you are innocent until proven guilty. Does this mean that the innocent man can sue the guilty mob or not? If OJ wasn't criminally guilty and civilly guilty what is the limit of the law? How about citizens arrest if it is wrong? Can you be found guilty of false arrest if you are wrong?
I'll bet there is some stupid part of the law that will allow the guilty man sue the mob for violations of his civil rights.

I guess that the man in me wants laws to be harsh and strange as it sounds, I want it fair. Yes, I know that I have said there is no fair in this world, I guess it needs to be better. I struggle with my ideal mad dog rule that takes a guilty offender out behind the police station and shoots a person who kills a person and more than two people know it is the truth. In fact, a person who raped and killed my niece's child sits on death row almost 10 years while the wheels of justice roll out slowly. The bastard said he did it and didn't want any appeals. When the appointed execution date rolled around he said wait, I now want my rights. Once a guy waives his rights, there should be no do overs.

I guess I have had time over the last couple of days to think about things that I really can't control. Time to step back and change the things I can, accept the things I can't and be smart enough to know the difference. Forget tilting windmills in Kansas where the "Not in My Backyard" group thinks they are ugly.

MUD