The Pact 2

            I’m reading a book called “The Pact” by Jodi Picoult, which is about 2 families who are very close, but Emily Gold’s suicide rips them apart and lands her beloved boyfriend Chris Harte in jail and on trial for the murder. I’m reaching the end of the book where Chris’s trial is taking place, I think that it shows how manipulative the court system is and how criminals can easy walk and innocent people can be put away.

            

          I believe that Chris didn’t kill Emily, but I think is trial is twisted and both sides will do anything to manipulate the jury instead of using all the hard evidence. Chris told his lawyer that he wasn’t suicidal but his lawyer has no choice but to base his entire case on the fact that it was a double suicide gone wrong because Chris was there when Emily died. When ever I read what the prosecution says I tend to lead in their direction but then I read what the defense has to say when talking to a witness and I believe them, but both stories can’t be the truth. Both stories aren’t the truth. It wasn’t a double suicide or a murder. I makes me wonder if its more important to reveal to the jury the absolute truth or just do what ever you can to make sure an innocent person doesn’t go to jail. In some cases telling the whole truth will help you get the right person in jail and the right person out, but not in this story. I think that Chris’s lawyer doesn’t whole-heartedly believe that Chris didn’t kill Emily and he’s just doing it for the money. I don’t think ethics and morals and the “right thing to do” aren’t always apparent in a court of law.

            

         I honestly don’t know how the jury can come to a decision in a murder case. If they get it wrong then a murder is set back into the world and an innocent people goes to jail and con possibly be sentenced to death. Both sides can have compelling arguments and good hard evidence but you have no idea if how they’re presenting you the evidence is twisted or just facts.  Sometimes it may seem that they have hard evidence but it good be evidence that they give to much meaning to. The jury will never know if they made the right decision and they have to move on knowing that somebody’s pain could be their fault, and I don’t see how someone could stand that. The court of law is supposed to be made up of cases that reveal the truth, but if one side is always lying how can you be sure what’s the truth and what’s lawyers twisting their words to prove a guilty man innocent.