Be warned: spoilers
[spoiler]Do you agree with Cassie and Sunny's decision to bury the crimes and not press charges against the three principal characters?[/spoiler]
I think it was the right move. They would have trouble proving it also.
shareI feel for the three abuse victims; but I have to say that after serious thought, I believe that the police detectives absolutely did the WRONG thing.
The police appointed themselves judge and jury, which is disturbing in itself. Their duty was to deliver the three principals to the justice system for a jury to decide their fate. A jury probably would have been very lenient on all three, perhaps even acquitting them if they didn't feel there was adequate proof of their crimes. At the very least Cassie and Sunny should have informed the crown attorney (or prosecutor's office, if that's what it's called in Britain) and let that legal entity decide whether to press charges. Instead, they kept their actions secretive, including the deliberate cover up of their discovery that two deaths (Colin's abuser and Marion's father) were really planned and pre-meditated murders, which will now never see the light of day.
Although one role of the legal system is to provide justice to victims, the other role is to protect the public safety. How secure is the public if police investigators can decide to ignore overwhelming evidence of a crime and choose not to press charges based on their personal feelings? What will happen if Cassie and Sunny come across another murder where the murderer is more sympathetic than the victim? They've crossed the line once; that may well make it easier to cross it again and say, "Let's not press charges in this case either; after all, we've done it before."
I can understand Cassie and Sunny's sympathy toward Marion, Colin, and Sara. Their humanity is illustrated in the fact that they don't relish putting the three through the ordeal of a trial. But they have set a dangerous precedent with their decision.
no way of proving it - move on to other current crimes.
shareThey have David Walker's widow's admission that he visited a house where he abused children. The police traced Sara Mahmoud to that house when she was young.
The police have seen all three -- Colin, Sara, and Marion -- meeting together and traced all three to the same psychiatric care facility where they were all treated for issues stemming from their childhood abuse. Plus, witnesses for each confirmed to police that they were abused (Colin's father, Sara's father, Marion's mother). The abusers of all three are dead.
Then there is the best proof of all: Colin's confession of the trio's entire plan and how it was carried out: they each killed one of the other's abuser.
circumstantial
shareA perpetrator's confession is circumstantial?
Putting that aside for a moment, it's not for the police to decide if there is enough proof. That is for the courts and the jury to deliberate on. The job of the police is to lay charges if their investigation results in evidence -- and even circumstantial evidence is still evidence -- that a crime has been committed.
Even if they don't want to charge the three principals, they must tell a legal authority what they've uncovered. They must NEVER keep silent and sweep pre-meditated murders under the carpet so that the public is none the wiser. They have an obligation to disclose their findings to the state's attorney (or crown attorney or prosecuting attorney). That legal body could very well decide that charges aren't warranted or that a grand jury must convene to decide if there is enough evidence. If a decision is made that there is enough evidence to go to trial, then the judge and jury take it from there and weigh all mitigating factors, including the abuse endured by the defendants. The justice system fails all of us if the police allow themselves to become secret keepers.
Pearljade. You are correct of course. It was not their choice and they broke procedure and in fact the law.
But look at the circumstances - was it really morally wrong? Like they discussed , hadnt the 3 victims (the alive ones) suffered enough? were they likely to kill again?
Usually in a police drama series they will of course follow the letter of the law, it was refreshing to see a change.
Even though Cassie and Sunny made their decision with empathy, compassion, and yes, even morality -- and I applaud the sensitivity these police professionals have shown -- I still think the end decision was not only legally wrong, but also misguided morally, even though a moral result is what they wanted to achieve ("leave the judging up to God"). The reason: these police detectives are not omniscient.
Many people who were sexually abused as children will in turn become abusing adults. We saw this with the David Walker character. The show was somewhat manipulative in portraying the three suspects as upstanding citizens who gravitated to careers that involved helping and nurturing the young: Colin in the juvenile court system, Marion in a pediatric cancer centre, and Sarah in the school system. They were portrayed as true righteous angels -- useful members of society who turned their lives around and dispatched predatory scum. But what if the show had revealed that earlier in their lives any one of those three - in their darkest hour before finding the right therapy - became an abuser? They all chose jobs with a proximity to children; was it always for altruistic reasons or was it for expediency -- to escape victimhood by choosing a victim?
And if that were the case, how would we feel about Cassie and Sunny's decision?
The morality that I worry about is that of Cassie and Sunny. Having swept three pre-meditated murders under the carpet this time, doesn't that put them in danger of doing so again the next time a sympathetic murderer is discovered? Do their job titles actually give them any greater insight into who truly has the moral upper hand?
well ... you could say they escaped victimhood by murdering their abusers. That would give a small fraction of closure and remind them if they became abusers , they were by their own admission deserving of death.
Using a bit of own judgement is a good thing. How many times do you hear cops saying "If we can prove x, y or z we have enough to get a conviction" , often what i'm hearing is they really dont give a crap wether theyre getting the right person , but they get a conviction. i know thats not usually the case but its the way it sounds.