Fnord wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
... two very different cases, both of which, it can be argued, were correctly decided.
They were both lawfully decided. "Correctly" is a matter of conjecture, and is being argued in another thread.Point.
But … remember my qualifier: “it can be argued.”
And I might add to that: “it can be argued by reasonable, informed and caring people.”
Lawfully decided is a bare minimum, but with the potential mistrial claims out there, even that is a debatable word choice. “Correctly” or “justly” decided will always be a matter of opinion, but I see enough non-partisan supporting analysis to believe they were, at least, “reasonably” decided, ie within the range of leading non-partisan (or multi-partisan) legal opinions.
I’m not saying everyone (or anyone) has to agree. I’m saying it isn’t that difficult to look at the two cases and, without throwing in jury prejudices as a factor, see how each reached a different conclusion.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).