When I saw the story about the Cleveland woman who was ordered to hold a humiliating sign as punishment for passing a school bus on the sidewalk, it got me thinking about the point where a court-ordered punishment goes from being deserved to possibly more unnecessary and humiliating.
I should start by stating that I am not a lawyer, nor do I claim to be well versed in the law. However, something struck me this morning after seeing that the prosecution in the Trayvon Martin case went for a second-degree murder charge against George Zimmerman (right, in a photo distributed by AP).
Legal experts have said that prosecutor Angela Corey will have a tough battle ahead getting a second-degree murder conviction.
Manslaughter, which covers reckless and unintentional killings, would seemingly be the charge more likely to stick based on the accounts of what happened.
Not knowing what evidence the prosecution has or what they are basing their charges on, I won’t speculate on what their specific strategy behind going for those charges might be, but this got me thinking purely hypothetically.
Would it be beyond the prosecution in this case to go for the maximum charge with the hope of NOT getting a conviction?
Sounds crazy, I’m sure – to think a prosecutor would aim to fail.
However, considering the political implications as well as public perception and immense pressure to bring Zimmerman to trial, did the special prosecutor really have the choice not to prosecute Zimmerman?
I understand that it is not uncommon for prosecutors to charge high and settle low. However, let’s just say that a prosecutor believed a killing was truly an accident or an act of self-defense and did not want to press charges at all, yet felt pressured to bring the perpetrator to trial simply because of all of the public scrutiny surrounding the case.