Unfair Justice? In spite of the horrible results the newly acquitted Mr. Elliot’s actions had, he didn’t do anything “wrong”. It is thisdilemma the U.K. have raged over the past few weeks after thejuvenile delinquent killed the father to three, Mr. Osbourne. Thereal problem here is that the people have felt deceived by theirown law, so what consequences are we now facing? No matter how unfair the acquitting of Mr. Elliot may seem,there is no doubt that he was innocent (not regarding the precedingvandalism) according to our law. He was attacked. He defendedhimself. That’s all there is to it and there is no law which coversall areas of crime, and there is certainly no law which is perfect. All you can conclude from this trial is that something is wrongwith our system of justice, and something must be done. We cannotjudge a man from laws made after the crime, so the current hype istherefor “over the top” and should in stead be focused on changing
the law and not assist to a lynch mood, which is currently beingseen everywhere in both the media and the public. So what is it exactly we can learn from this trial? Well, forstarters we can specify the problem. The rule Elliot was caughtunder, is according to Richard Ferguson, chairman of the CriminalBar Association as follows: “But the law is the law and it givesthe right to defend oneself and to use such force as is reasonablein the circumstances”. Putting this to mind, it can hardly seemlike an unfair trial. What we do want to avoid in the future isthat anyone trying to protect his or her own property, must havethat right, even using ’such force as is reasonable in thecircumstances’. Thereby we can fight evil with evil, but stillavoid an anarchic situation. By using all this energy, which is being displayed in themedia and public on something useful instead, our law might justmove that one step more towards perfection, but being vigilantewill not help you or the public.