Judge not …

Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

I can’t help but wonder what the outcome of a new trial for Nelson Hart would be if having what appears to be a selective memory were to be a criminal offence under the Criminal Code.

As matters stand now, because reasonable doubt has been raised, Hart could soon be a free person, at least in the eyes of the law. Personally I believe that there are other eyes watching each and every person on this Earth. I believe that each and every one of us will one day face a judge who is both divine and infallible.

For better or worse, our justice system is only as fallible as those who design it. Sometimes the innocent are found guilty and the guilty go free. However, it’s all we’ve got. We would do well to remember that the court of public opinion is as flawed as any legal system, if not more so. In the court of public opinion, those who would point judgmental fingers are often not called to account for their verdicts/judgements.

The action of anyone who would deliberately and maliciously harm a child or other vulnerable person is absolutely repugnant to me. However, if we do not afford both those who appear before a judge to be tried in a court of law, or those who are tried in the court of public opinion the benefit of the doubt, are we really any better than those who walk away free because our legal system, via the principle of reasonable doubt, demands that we behave with a greater respect for the dignity of the individual, that is so often conspicuous by its absence in the court of public opinion?


Herb Morrison

St. John’s                                                              

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • Eli
    October 10, 2012 - 08:48

    I see your point but in Hart's case he was the only one on the wharf with those two innocents. I don't know if they visited that venue regularly or that was an isolated visit.