Being Unpopular Or Disliked Aren't Reasons To Prosecute

I never liked Roger Clemens. I always found him arrogant, standoffish and, don't forget he used to pitch for the Red Sox. However, what he may (or may not have done) in terms of using HGH (which by the way was neither illegal or a banned substance at the time), or whether he or a man who claimed to inject him (and even creepier, still, said he saved the needles in beer cans) doesn't really make much difference to me, or really shouldn't to anyone. And, if lying to Congress was such a horrendous offense, how about all the politicians much of the time, members of Cabinet, "spun" answers, bankers and financial people, etc? At very best, this appears to be a case of selective prosecution.

It is estimated that the government (yes, that means all of us taxpayers) spent a minimum of $3 million on this prosecution, and that Clemens spent at least an equal amount defending himself. Even a casual observer should have realized that this case was based on the testimony of a rather questionable key witness. After the first trial was dismissed (without prejudice) because of prosecution error, and what might that have cost, it was decided to retry this case. And, this time, all 12 juror found Clemens "not guilty" on all charges.

I never liked or trusted John Edwards. There was just something that always seemed slimy and less than trustworthy to me about him, but I guess that can be said about many people in politics. Obviously, his behavior was contemptable. However, was there a prosecutable crime? The jury found him "not guilty" on one charge and could not arrive at a verdict on the others. Did this case justify the expense and resources?

When they wanted a scapegoat for some of the financial innapropriate behavior, who was singled out? Martha Stewart, and not for her financial misconduct, but rather for her words. Although Stewart is another unlikeable individual, I doubt that too many people believe she is the biggest threat to our financial system. And, now that's she's out, she's back in business, so wasn't this an expensive lesson and discipline to someone that wasn't well liked.

How about all the cases where the key witness is someone who's been given a deal for his testimony? Obviously, when it comes to prosecutions, there is often not an even playing field.

Even the second O.J. case was prosecuted not because of that crime, but rather because of public sentiment that he needed to be punished for his alleged previous offense (of which he was not convicted). Most legal experts state that the punishment/ sentence for that crime was disproportionate with that specific offense? It appeared that this trial was the legal equivalent of when a referee calls a questionable "touch foul" to make up for a poor earlier decision/ call!

No wonder there is such a backlog in our courts. Shouldn't trials be reserved for crimes where there is substantial proof, or serious threats to society? When we speak of government waste, don't forget the court system. Remember that being a jerk is not always a criminal offense! These are just a sampling of questionable decisions and actions taken. Let's speak out so that we have a true justice system that makes decisions based on evidence and facts, and not personalities, etc.