The process we recently witnessed in the United States Senate was similar, but not exactly the same, as a trial in the criminal justice system. While we may desire perfection, both are less than that.

In the matter at hand, the end result bore a distinct resemblance to that which occasionally happens in a criminal trial. That result is known as jury nullification. While there was evidence to suggest that the accused did as alleged, even admitted to, the jury chose to ignore the facts.

It happens. Also, as is always the case at the end of a criminal trial, one side will claim foul while the other cheers the fact justice was rendered. Justice is always rendered; it just depends on which side of the “justice coin” your interests lie. Like beauty, it is in the eyes of the beholder.

A well-known attorney once told me if I was looking for the truth, a court room was the last place I would find it. If what we witnessed was to bear an even closer resemblance to a criminal trial, then I would suggest that virtually every one of the 100 so-called jurors would have been disqualified for a host of reasons.

Some of the prosecutors and defense attorneys would also have been disqualified in their respective roles because they were potential witnesses to some or all of the allegations.

As for witnesses, on occasion, in a criminal trial, some witnesses are precluded from testifying to what they may know and/or offer for varying reasons. It happens.

In this case the jurors had that final say. In a criminal trial it’s the judge who holds sway.

In the end, we are and were left with a less than perfect system, but it is our system. This time, your beliefs were either upheld or not, and while I hope there will never be another time, only time will tell as “politics,” the dirtiest game in town, continue to worsen.

Stand by and stay tuned; your time may just be an election or two away.

Respectfully,

FREDERICK B. PARSELLS

11 McKinley St.

Keene