Unfit to serve?
July 1, 2025
Brian Kohberger has plead guilty to many crimes related to the murder of four Idaho students - Chapin, Goncalves, Kernodle, and Mogen.
Kohberger was pursuing a PhD in Criminal Justice.
Ironically, one use of such a degree could be as a 'Victim Advocate'.
Kohberger is evidence that some people pursue careers in justice,
with the intent of abusing others, because certain positions invest people with power.
(Yes, I believe Kohberger intended to use his education to harm others.)
So, some people are unfit to serve in their chosen profession.
For professionals in the courtroom, there should be the ability to serve justice
no matter the position they occupy.
A prosecuting attorney, to be found fit to serve in that capacity,
should be able to either prosecute or defend an accused person
that is obviously guilty.
By defend, I do not mean to try for a 'not guilty' verdict,
but to insure that:
the defendant is given a full measure of 'due process'
the charges are appropriate for the available evidence and testimony,
the evidence was properly procured, analyzed and verified,
and the evidence is held secure via a proper chain of custody.
Likewise, a defense attorney, to be found fit to serve in that capacity -
should able to prosecute this same defendant with enthusiastic vigor.
As i've said elsewhere, a convicted defendant has no right to plead mitigating circumstances
for a crime he claims he never committed. Only those who plead guilty have a reason
to plead mitigating circumstances.
And a judge - should also be able to step into either role with enthusiasm.
***********************************************************************
What matters most here is the law, not the victim, not the accused, but the law.
For when good laws and fair legal procedures are properly revered and used,
both victims and their families, and the accused and their families
will receive a fair and just outcome.
UNFIT TO SERVE?
The Jury's second voice
I have seen many crime shows - where it seems that justice was perverted because of evidence that the judge allowed or disallowed in court.
We regularly see interviews of juries after the trial, and after they learn of evidence or testimony that was not allowed. They said, often rightfully, that if they had known the things that were withheld from them, they would have voted differently.
I suggest that when this happens, a majority of that trial's jurors can petition for an examination of that judges ability to fairly preside over a trial, with possible removal from the bench.
I don't know what this process would look like, but it would be interesting. If a jury is qualified to put a person on death row, they should be qualified to take a judge off the bench.