Trial--and Error

I have a very soft spot for lawyers, being married to one and being the mother of another. As the saying goes, some of my best friends are lawyers.  Usually I am able to cut them a lot of slack. A lawyer's job is to help his client. Anyone accused of anything is entitled to a lawyer and a good defense. I have a more difficult time believing this in cases that are really cringe-worthy--anything that involves children as victims, for example. I've managed to avoid comments on the whole Penn State brouhaha, but yesterday, a defense lawyer, commenting on (not answering) a question as to whether Sandusky would testify on his own behalf, said (I paraphrase) that he couldn't answer that question as it would 'ruin the excitement'. That was the word he used. Excitement.

Excuse me if I fail to see what is exciting about a trial concerning child abuse. It might, I suppose, be exciting for a young lawyer to be involved in a high-profile, nationally-covered trial, but the testimony (or non-) of the defendant shouldn't make a difference there. What the lawyer said, as far as I can see, is  an indictment of the public. Are trials of this sort public entertainment? Is this theater? And of course, it is--witness the OJ Simpson trial, the trial of Michael Jackson's doctor, the multitudinous legal hi-jinks of  Lindsay Lohan, or Charlie Sheen, or Robert Downey..  All of these garner ratings that any network would die for.

If it were just celebrity worship, if it were just fans following the lives and doings of their favorites, it might be forgivable. We ordinary people are often fascinated by the foibles of the other half, the misfortunes that prove that wealth and fame don't really make them different from us. An occasional reminder of their feet of clay (complete with photos) isn't so bad. But here? Here we have a trusted (and, of course, famous) coach, accused of preying on the young men in his charge; who were in fact purportedly being helped by the coach's own charity foundation. And his lawyer is worrying about ruining the excitement of the trial??? I doubt the judge and jury are worrying about whether they will be kept on the edge of their seats. I doubt that the young men and their parents, or families and friends, or even the defendant himself, are too concerned about how exciting the big finish is going to be. This isn't "Dancing with the Stars". This isn't the movie of the week (though I have no doubt it will become that, sooner or later.)

This is real life, not reality TV. The workings of the justice system should not be measured by its excitement level or its entertainment potential. What is wrong with us?