Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
The reason behind the pardon is what is important.
|
No, what's important is that she was tried and convicted. Being pardoned at a later date does nothing to affect her guilt or innocence. Pardons are a matter of clemency, not of being found "not guilty". FYI: A great many of the lower-ranking Axis soldiers that were convicted of war crimes were later pardoned and released (most by 1955). Does that mean that they were wrongfully convicted? Of course not.
Quote:
|
She was assured that she was innocent by the justice department, it was only upon returning the media decided to go after her. The trial was a joke. The judge admitted he was prejudiced against her from the start. As someone who claims to be more experienced at the law than I, can you tell me what happens to a trial and verdict when a judge says he is prejudiced against the defendant in one of their cases?
|
Judges are often biased against people tried before them. That's irrelevant. What IS relevant is that the judge conducted the trial in an impartial manner, and that she received due process of law. If the judge didn't, even if she was convicted at the trial level, that's grounds for reversal upon appeal at the multiple levels of appellate jurisdiction.
BTW, regardless of what you may see on "Law and Order", the media can NOT bring criminal charges against an individual, EVER. The most that they can do is contact the police, but only if the specific media organization was the target of a specific attack of some form. An example of this would be, say, if a media outlet was firebombed, they can call the police and "press charges". But as for actually bringing charges? Nope, they can't do it, just as they can't bring somebody before a grand jury. That's not "what they do".