His Rapist Fraudster Former Majesty’s criminal fate is now in the hands of a New York jury.
Come, I will be honest with you1: I hope he gets convicted and ends up doing some time behind bars. I’ve followed the trial very closely and would have no problem finding him guilty because the evidence is compelling and is well beyond the reasonable doubt threshold.
But my views are irrelevant. As are yours. In fact, as are everyone’s views, except those of the twelve people assessing the evidence.
And you know what? Much as I’d like to see the orange turd do time2 I’ll be fine with whatever decision the jury reaches3.
Why? Because the most important thing here is not His Rapist Fraudster Former Majesty’s guilt or innocence, it’s the principle that no one is above the law.
Which is difficult for at least some Americans to accept, no doubt because of our intense focus on individualism and individual freedom. No one enjoys being held to account for their actions.
But we need to remember there’s a difference between individualism and individual freedom. The latter is essential to the pursuit of happiness. But putting limits on the former is absolutely necessary if we are not all to become the serfs of some random strong man (or strong woman). History shows a certain fraction of those who amass power will use it to establish dominion over others4.
I trust the jury system. It’s not perfect (no human institution is). But it works surprisingly well.
I like to tell the story about one of my personal experiences being on a jury for a capital crime, a Mexican mafia hit perpetrated by someone who was trying to make his bones in a cartel. It was abundantly clear, to me and one other juror, that the defendant was guilty…and I was serving under a shot clock, with a long-planned Hawaiian vacation at risk.
But our attempt to short-circuit the deliberation process failed, as it should have. Instead, everyone thought out loud, trying to find some reasonable explanation that fit the evidence but which was not associated with the defendant being guilty. It was only after no one could do that that we found the defendant guilty.
It was, and will always be to me, a shining example of how “ordinary” people can and will do what’s right to uphold the principles on which our legal system is based. Even in the face of those who would seek to undermine it.
In recognition of how important these deliberations are — whatever outcome results — our flag will be flying 24/75 until that New York jury finishes its work.
which I almost always am here ↩
thanx, Daniels, for a wonderfully evocative appellation! ↩
even a non-decision, i.e., a hung jury ↩
In fact, if you accept Bishop Berkeley’s famous dictum about absolute power corrupting absolutely then the relevant fraction of potentially dangerous people is 100% ↩
illuminated at night, of course ↩
