Okay, so discouraged is not a good word. Pedant.

Anyway, the disingenuousness of abortion “jurisprudence” is better exemplified by that laws making the killing of a fetus murder if done without the consent of the mother, whereas supposedly under the constitution the fetus isn’t even a person. How can there be a murder without a dead person?

The law is a farce in many ways, at least ‘as applied’ it is. The felony murder rule should have been held unconstitutional a long time ago. One of the biggest shocks to me when I started was the number of actual felony murder prosecutions. I just assumed in modern times it would be more theory than practice.

Any conviction for felony murder would be disturbing to a sane person: the defendant never killed anyone, and never intended to kill anyone, yet they are somehow “murderers”? Ugh.

So in a nutshell, the judiciary will gleefully sign off on murder convictions where there is no dead person and murder convictions where the convicted murdered didn’t kill anyone or even intend to or attempt to.

Obviously there is some non-rational reason for these results.

I’m 44. I’m not young any more. “Discouraged” is a funny word. I don’t believe I’ve lost my courage.

I had stopped coming over here because you hadn’t posted in such a long time. Now look at all the catching up I have to do!

Didn’t I ever say anything about the abortion-breast cancer link work you did? Can’t believe I missed that.

Don’t get discouraged. You’re too young for that. You can always do it later on.

And I’d note in this particular case it appears it would have practically taken jury nullification for the defense to prevail and for justice to be done. So whose fault is that? The defense attorneys’? Or the prosecutors’ and the law’s?

Who are you? Are you a judge?

Only in very few cases, if any, would a defense attorney’s press campaign make a difference in the outcome of a trial.

A defense attorney can blame himself for his failure to prevent an injustice while still seeing who and what commits the injustice. Look at the comments on any news story about an alleged crime and you’ll see that the bloodthirstiness, the knee-jerk instinct to punish, is flourishing like a cancer in our country, although it seems more malignant in some parts than others. In a better world and a better system, the defense really would be an afterthought, reflecting the actual disparity in the here and now between prosecutor and public defender budgets, because prosecutors would really seek justice, instead of acting like their role is to put as many people away as they can for as long as they can.

Think on Harold Braun, who did so many TV and print media interviews the day after Blake’s arrest, it made one wonder how he had time to prepare anything or even be in court. But his intent to remind the public about the very real potential that there could have been literally hundreds of her victims who wanted her dead did, imho, succeed towards the long term outcome of Blake’s acquittal. Which is the point of BEING the defense. To get defendants acquitted.

Blaming a judge or opposing counsel or the jury for failing to see the defendants should be released is the bloviation of defense attorneys with no character, no skill, and no talent for the law. Go drill teeth.