beyond a reasonable doubt

It is not required that the state prove guilt beyond all possible doubt. The test is one of reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense----the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, must be proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it.

a few weeks ago, i was in a bar listening to a young lawyer explain the logistics of her defense cases to me. after a deep line of questioning and the mental acrobatics that followed, one crystalline fact rose to the surface: our justice system has nothing to do with justice. it's a chess game of revealing certain facts and flashing them in front of the jury box like a red cape, hoping that they don't ask questions beyond that. indeed, to my knowledge, jurors aren't even allowed to ask questions to counsel.

then how do you quell reasonable doubt? if the base of our legal system is that people are innocent until proven guilty and attorneys must prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, how can someone who takes their responsibility as a juror seriously be true to their conscience without bringing up the questions that are on their minds as individuals. in florida, a mistrial was called when 8 jurors used their cellular phones to research whether a defendant had illegally sold prescription drugs online. and why not? if the information is publicly available, isn't it simply researching common knowledge?

but this is where we get into the strategy of defense, what can and cannot be included as evidence based on how it was collected and so forth. the young lawyer that told me about her case was completely candid about what she knew and was keeping from the jury. if she was forced to give up all relevant information, which objective justice would require, there would be little strategy left to be had. but isn't that the fair way to do things? shouldn't law be about justice not about trickery?

Eduardo Galeano from 'Patas Arriba'

Does history repeat itself? Or might it be that it repeats itself only as a penance of those who are unable to listen to it? History is not mute. As much as they burn it, as much as the break it, as much as they lie about it, human history refuses to shut its mouth. The time that was continues to beat, alive, from within the time which is, even if this time (the present) doesn't want it to, or doesn't know. The right to remember doesn't figure among the human rights consecrated by
the UN, but today more than ever it's necessary to reinvigorate it and put it in practice: not to repeat the past, but to avoid repeating it; not so that we, the living, should be ventriloquists of the dead, but so that we may be able to speak with voices not condemned to the perpetual echo of stupidity and disgrace. When it is indeed alive, memory doesn't contemplate history, it invites us to make it. More than in the museums, where the poor man gets bored, memory is in the air we breath; and she, from the air, breathes us.

he's a keeper

my neighbor and i have a joke about building a dictionary for all the terms that our generation uses to abbreviate slang. clearly, sometimes 3 syllable words are so laborious to sound out that they are butchered into words like, obvi and totes. as an x- reading teacher this pretench way of speaking is so abhorrent to me that it borders on repugnant.

so today, i receive a text message from jeremy- who seemed normal enough when i met him at a party months ago, but i haven't seen or heard from him since. so oddly, he tries to open the door up again with the lamest attempt at spitting game i've ever seen. here's the message:

--
emily its jeremy. i saw ur nmber stl in phone. we dnced at cole st hourse party n i liked that. thght id let u knw i hve salad grns if u njoy that sort, holla.
--

beyond this shoddy attempt at rekindling what never, my distaste was further flared at the vague, possibly sexual innuendo that this text presented. what the hell does salad grns mean anyway? was young jeremy being cheeky and hoping i was down for salad? if he's referring to pot then he obviously doesn't know me. either way, this text representing one gigantic fail and needed to be addressed lest he think this kind of laziness was acceptable on any level. i responded with the following:

--
Fer srius? Salad grns need tossin? WTF? U Shld git ur shizzle togetha be4 u holla at a grl.
--

UPDATE...jeremy responds with the following:

--
... grns for eatin or use as culinary HerbS is what im sharin. keep that quik wit n byte cutie.
--