Monday, June 30, 2008

Last thoughts on the Entwistle trial

Jami Floyd from TruTV posted a great blog entry called “For the defense,” which I happen to agree with. Throughout the Neil Entwistle case, I have read comments online that Entwistle does not deserve a publicly-funded defense or even a trial. Such comments are simply un-American. The Constitution guarantees all defendants the right to legal representation and a fair trial by jury. The fact that there is a lot of evidence against a particular defendant, or that the defendant is widely hated, does not and should not change this.

I commend Elliot Weinstein and Stephanie Page for putting forth their best effort in defending their client. Although their murder-suicide theory did not ultimately succeed, it was a bold, ingenious move. I understand the pain that the Matterazzo family is suffering and why they are offended by the defense’s version of events, but no one should criticize Weinstein or Page for doing the best job possible for their client.

I generally support a small government with as few taxes as possible, but one of the few things I’m willing to pay taxes for is the protection of everyone’s constitutional rights. State-funded representation is often necessary to ensure that defendants receive fair trials. Providing a fair legal system is one of the most important duties (if not the most important) of the government. If you were accused of a crime, wouldn’t you agree?

No comments: