I
read the EPCC newspaper from time to time, mainly the section written
by you. In your article about John Karr, the supposed Jon Benet
murderer, you state that society, or the judicial system at least,
should not convict people unless there is no shadow of a doubt that
they committed a crime.
You also say that they have a right to confess without a lawyer being
present.
And that is what stumps me about this article. I mean, why shouldn’t
we take people at their word if it’s a confession to such a
heinous crime? Sure, while they may be just saying stuff to
get attention, what if it does shed some light on the case?
As far as I know he wasn’t convicted anyway. Convicting people
is something that happens everyday, whether it’s for a crime
or simply for having horrible fashion sense. To be able to get an
arrest warrant, all a police man has to do is have probable cause.
So if we shouldn’t convict people without a shadow of a doubt,
then why don’t we cut out the middle man and not arrest any
one until they are proven guilty and all the information points to
them?
I believe it’s because if we were to take that approach then
there would be thousands of criminals free. Hopefully you now see
what my issues with the article are, and I would really appreciate
if you shed some light on my doubts.
By sending you this letter I am by no means implying that you are
a bad reporter or how to do your job. All I am saying is that there
are many questions your article raises and I would really appreciate
you answering a couple.
