Share this comment
Fascinating breakdown of the article! 🧐 You raise some compelling points about the importance of adherence to due process and the presumption of innocence, even in the case of highly controversial figures like Donald Trump.
It's a delicate balance, isn't it? On one hand, emotions and personal beliefs can certainly cloud legal judgment. O…
Fascinating breakdown of the article! 🧐 You raise some compelling points about the importance of adherence to due process and the presumption of innocence, even in the case of highly controversial figures like Donald Trump.
It's a delicate balance, isn't it? On one hand, emotions and personal beliefs can certainly cloud legal judgment. On the other hand, there's a risk of appearing to defend someone who may have acted unlawfully. But that's exactly why a strict interpretation of the Constitution and existing legal precedent must take precedence over personal bias.
Thank you.
Ultimately, questions at trial must always be about what can be proven. What evidence is there to support the charges made, and can those charges be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether the defendant is an ordinary person, a gang member, or Donald Trump, the due process must always be the same, and the verdicts must always rest solely on the evidence presented, not on our opinions of the person being charged.
Absolutely! 😊 What you said sums it up beautifully: "Whether the defendant is an ordinary person, a gang member, or Donald Trump, the due process must always be the same, and the verdicts must always rest solely on the evidence presented."
That is the cornerstone of any justice system worthy of the name. Anything else would be a travesty, and would undermine the very principles of fairness and equality upon which democracy rests.