Why the USA Judicial System is Unfair

The USA’s judicial system is unfair and heavily slanted toward the prosecution.  I’m going to explain how and why.  Here, I’ll break down three obvious ones.

If you can guess that a criminal entertainment channel disguised as a news outlet is one of ’em … you’d be correct.  Can you guess who I’m referring to?

 There’s only 1 media outlet 

Due to the media, the accused is presumed guilty; when a defendant is in the defendant’s chair, walking in handcuffed, Americans view that person as guilty.
There’s only one media outlet that covers high profile legal cases.  This media outlet happens to be biased tabloid yellow journalism, and it’s called HLN.  While news sources may cover a high profile case in a 3 minute piece, HLN pounds away with their propaganda all afternoon and all evening.  Where’s the balance?   Do jurors go home and read websites and watch television?  Of course.

Balance is sorely missing, as HLN, which is mere tabloid yellow journalism, has a monopoly on the market.  There needs to be a news source under the auspice of a large corporation like CNN that balances things out.  Perhaps a source for news that reflects a website like this one. And watch this 2-minute pop-up video of Brian Stelter the NY Times explaining: how HLN influences media outlets -- even their own sister channel yet competitor, HLN.


 Prosecutors have absolute immunity 

Strengthened by the Rehberg v. Paulk SCOTUS decision, prosecutors like Linda Drane Burdick and Jeff Ashton can knowingly lie under oath about chloroform searches with no worries.  Mike Nifong can charge Duke Lacrosse players with a serious charge like rape while knowing he’s completely lying with little punishment.  Juan Martinez can throw pens and papers, bully witnesses, and cut the testimony of witnesses out with no recourse.  Heck, ,Juan Martinez can even tell the jury to put themselves in Travis Alexander’s shoes — a blatant violation of US law — without an admonishment or a mistrial.  Judge Sherry Stephens just has to say “the jury is to disregard what the state said.”  How can they?  It’s already been said!

 The prosecution gets 2 closing arguments while the defense gets 1 

All of these things must be fixed in the future if we’re ever to have a fair judicial system, if we’re ever going to cease from being “incarceration nation”, and if we’re ever going to quell criminal entertainment tabloids like HLN.
This is perhaps the most unfair part of our judicial system.  Closing arguments, such as the ones taking place at the time of this posting in the Jodi Arias case, start off with the prosecution’s closing argument.  Remember, the trial has already been heavily slanted toward the prosecution.  Then, the defense has an opportunity to proffer their closing argument.  So it’s over, right?

Wrong!  In the USA, the prosecution gets a 2nd closing argument.  Some people call this a “rebuttal”, but all it really is, is another closing argument.  Where’s the fairness there — especially considering the entire trial is slanted toward the prosecution in the first place?

What are your thoughts?  Leave your comments below!

Jason Weber
Founder of Occupy HLN. Hockey player-turned-professional. Graduate of Cornell University's Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management '97. Sports fanatic, enjoy networking, and keeping up with current events. Technocrat, Schema, SEO, blogaholic, social media contributor, Stack Exchange contributor, and keeping up with G's daily algorithmic alterations.
Jason Weber


Protecting your constitutional civil rights of due process from yellow journalism, the trial-by-media lynch-mob, & the prison lobby
Jason Weber
Jason Weber