By the time the statutes play out, they aren't all that flexible. I see the problem in this case as one of prosecutorial over-reach, which can happen in light of the simplest of statutes. See Duke rape hoax, for example.
The other issue in the Twin Peaks case(s) is the apparent buy-in by supposedly independent and learned judges. I figure they expect the errors to sort out as the process goes down the line, and do not want to be fingered as finding error by the police or DA. The judges are willing to allow innocents to go through the wringer, on the rationalization that if they aren't convicted, no real harm has been done. That's the judge's view, all they see is people in court, and if a defendant is not convicted, the judge generally sees that as "the system works."
I've said it before, but it's worth repeating. Abuse of legal process is common, usually against individuals or small groups of accused. Many cops and DA's and judges are on power trips, and merely disrespecting authority is enough to trigger punishment by process.
“punishment by process”
Good quote!! That applies to civil torts as well, because the claws are out to tear up the wronged in order to forestall any and all acknowledgment of liability.
As I have said before, anyone suffering injustice, has to suffer more, to obtain a modicum of justice, no matter how small.
HA! An apology after three more years of turmoil, only because we found an understanding attorney who was not in it for the money, was worth it!!
Is it worth it? Yes, but that is up to each person’s situation as to what they can individually bear in terms of time, suffering, and the financial costs associated.
EVERYONE is apparently, to one extent or another, willing to let the innocents go through the wringer. Doctors, lawyers, OK maybe not Indian Chiefs, at least not in my personal experience.
SO which laws are suspect? In the Duke case, in the Zimmerman case, they ultimately prevailed — but only because they were willing to undertake the fight.
So those laws, under which the accused ultimately prevailed, are still valid laws . . . ? “Merely” wrongly applied? Laws clear enough so that the innocent could be vindicated?
Now AACH again, what about the RICO-type laws?!? And why should laws be valid or invalid, depending upon the willingness and ability of those wrongly accused under said law, to somehow have the means and ability to challenge and prevail?
And why in all this complexity of law under which innocents suffer, should anyone defend criminal gangs?? Who are those among the many who are willing to put innocents through the wringer. Bystanders, even their own members.
Had Zimmerman, the Duke defendants not prevailed? would the law itself be more distorted for future cases?