Guilty! Guilty! Guilt...oh, wait...fictional!

Far be it from me to say that people don't come up with strange excuses. Not too long ago, for example, I wrote about the thief who tried to excuse himself by claiming it was his role-playing alter ego Elven character who robbed the lingerie store. Uh...okay.

So it is not all that unbleivable that an alleged drunk driver would make the defense it was a unicorn who crashed into the light pole. After all, who hasn't seen a unicorn chauferring drunks around?

And so the prosecutor made the case.

Only one problem. The drunk never claimed that. It was internal code from one prosecutor to another.

Too bad. Would have been a much better story instead of yet one more example where, even if the slimeball is deserving of prosecution, the purveyors of "justice" in this country are more concerned with "winning" where winning = conviction regardless of truth instead of finding out if the accused is legitimately guilty, if instead of that the guy really had claimed a unicorn was driving.




As an addendum to the above, where the above is intended to be mildly humorous and the addendum below is not, I have this to say;

I find it very disturbing that prosecutors are so tuned in to the need to win a conviction at all costs that they withhold (illegally, I might add) exculpatory evidence, refuse to reconsider a case even when contradictory evidence is later brought to light, and so forth.

I also find it disturbing that so many defense attorneys, knowing their client is guilty, still try to get their client off, often on tangents such as technicalities..."Sure, he murdered 27 people in gory, painful fashion, but the policeman was off duty and out of his jurisdiction when he arrested him." Shoot them both and be done with it.