...for a kid who already had a rap sheet and record by the age of 12? A kid who had admittedly burglarized homes? What, he was going to turn his life around if he had gotten off here? Please. Even if he didn't commit the rape, I don't think society is losing out on a whole lot by having this piece of trash behind bars. The only miscarriage of justice here is that the other two punks are not rotting alongside him.

We're actually supposed to feel sorry for our criminal justice system and the principles of fair treatment from the law that our nation was founded upon. Depriving someone of liberty for a crime they might not have committed is wrong, period. Even if they're a bad person, even if they would have ended up in jail for something else, even if they're already in jail for something else. Once the precedent of injustice is in the system, all it takes is a judge a little more activist than the one in this case to build on it, applying these sentences to more people at their whim.

I save my sympathy for those who deserve it. If he had been shot dead while robbing homes, should we cry for him then? One less scumbag off the streets. If this guy wasn't in a wheelchair and making puppy-dog faces for the cameras, nobody would care. I still don't.

We should feel sorry for ourselves, who must live within a system that is so broken that actual guilt or innocence is meaningless.

It isn't this kid...it's you and me and everybody else. But I guess getting it right doesn't mean all that much.

When I read the phrase "accidentally killing it" I lost interest in any larger point this reporter was trying to make. To Slate editors: The word "travesty" in a headline should be followed up with something more than 1,200 words of phoned in nonesense.

Exactly, BritBailey, it's not about him, it's about us. I think it's telling how strongly Americans fight over bad decisions by authority... when it comes to sports. Case in point: People were nearly up in arms for instant replay in baseball this fall, in the name of getting the call right. Football games drag on for four hours in part because of replay and referee conferrals. Why? In the interest of fairness, we want to get the call right.

When a cornerback with a reputation for playing dirty is penalized for pass interference on a play where he didn't even touch the receiver, we still get outraged at the call, and rightfully so. Our outrage is not sympathy for the cornerback, it's indignation that justice has been perverted. That player's coach has every right to have the play reviewed (appealed, so to speak), and despite a built-in bias for the play as called (just like the courts), any reasonable person would expect the call to be reversed.

For all the effort we put to ensure justice in sports officiating, you'd think we'd at least put half as much effort into ensuring justice in our legal system. You know, to get the call right.

I don't have any sympathy for the defendant at all, however; if the trial is as bad as this article makes it out to be, it offends my sense of fairness. It's not about determining whether the defendant is a good or bad person ---and frankly, he probably is a bad person---, it's about determining whether *this* defendant committed *this* rape. Our legal system cannot and should not punish people for offenses they have not committed. This case has shaky evidence and I'd be skeptical as well.
But, I'm a law student, so I tend to have a different perspective on the legal system.

I find it funny that many of these assholes are the same Rightwingers who insist that Congress stick to the Constitution EXACTLY as it is written...but when it comes to the law and defendents, just getting it close enough is okay.

Hey it is MY Constitution not YOUR Constitution. It was written to bolster my world view not yours. I'll show you the parts which support what I think (skip the rest).

Same goes for the Bible.

I find it funny that many of these assholes are the same Rightwingers who insist that Congress stick to the Constitution EXACTLY as it is written...but when it comes to the law and defendents, just getting it close enough is okay. On the contrary, I think it's vitally important that we punish only the guilty. I just think that an impartial jury verdict at the conclusion of a fair trial is a much more reliable answer than a bunch of yahoos spouting off on the internet.

Once the precedent of injustice is in the system, all it takes is a judge a little more activist than the one in this case to build on it, applying these sentences to more people at their whim.

Injustice is all ready in the system. That dog will not be replaced and the old woman will never be the same. We do not have a justice system.