Judge says no to Entwistle jury expert

Double-murder suspect Neil Entwistle recently asked for $5,000 to hire a jury consultant for his upcoming trial, and the judge in the case turned the request down. The judge's decision was certainly a reasonable one, but what wasn't reasonable, in my opinion, were the comments made about Entwistle's request by Jane Doe, Inc., a Massachusetts coalition of groups that advocate for victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse.

Toni Troop, a spokeswoman for Jane Doe, said "It's a slap in the face ... Where’s the balance for protection of victims? We’re backing costly cases while cutting domestic violence programs in Massachusetts."

Warning, this is probably not going to be a popular opinion, but it's true: Troop's comment does not make much sense at all. Jane Doe recently asked for a $10 million budget increase. That $10 million would come entirely from the taxpayers' pockets. I don't want to be disrespectful of the victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, but come on. $10 million is a LOT of money. A heck of a lot more than $5,000. The role of the government should be to maintain the roads, provide for a police force and army, try accused criminals fairly, and punish those who are found guilty. It is not the government's job to steal money from people and use it to create social programs.

What I don't understand is how someone can ask for $10 million and then call it "a slap in the face" when another person asks for $5,000. What is the problem with making sure everyone gets a fair trial? The evidence against Entwistle is pretty strong, but everyone is innocent until proven guilty. If the judge ruled that a jury expert is not necessary to have a fair trial, fine. But Neil Entwistle has every right to have a publicly funded legal team.

Contrary to Ms. Troop's opinion, there is a "balance for protection of victims." It's called the legal system. Domestic violence is illegal, and if there is sufficient evidence that someone has committed a crime they are arrested, tried, and if proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, convicted.

Jane Doe should not complain that the government plans to cut its budget by $1 million. The state budget has ballooned out of control and needs to be cut drastically. Social programs like Jane Doe are not as essential to preserving people's freedom (which is the purpose of government) as making sure the legal process is fair and just. If you want the already gargantuan state budget to increase by $10 million to fund your organization, you have no right to complain when a defendant asks for a modest $5,000 to help him get a fair trial.

By the way, isn't it a little sexist that the organization is called Jane Doe? Can't men be victims too??

Sources:
"Advocates, kin fight $1M in proposed cuts" - Boston Herald
"Entwistle $$ request infuriates advocates" - Boston Herald