In a February 4, 2010, article in the Toronto Globe and Mail [1] about what is going to be a “high-profile” trial for murder, under the headline
A shocking school slaying rendered sterile in court
Christie Blatchford, who should know better, complained that the Crown’s opening statement “managed to render murder dull.” She wrote:
This is modern Canadian justice, where even such a shocking killing is rendered sterile, the poor victim barely given a nod, all in the name, presumably, of a prosecution so measured that no one will ever again be wrongfully convicted – or at least not because a Crown attorney thundered inappropriately and inflamed a jury.
and
Against all odds, the real-life principals of Law & Order Canada, undoubtedly following all the correct legal principles to the letter, have managed to render murder dull.
“Presumably” to avoid wrongful conviction? “Sterile”? Sterile for whom? The judge? The jury? Certainly not for the judge. Ms. Blatchford might have had a point if her purpose was to suggest that that the opening was so dull that it might have resulted in the jury not paying attention. However, there’s no reason to believe that was her point. If it was, she didn’t say that. As such, I think it correct to conclude that she didn’t mean “so dull that the judge and jury missed the point”.
Would Ms. Blatchford have complained in the manner she did if the victim of the killing was an admitted serial killer?
With all due respect to Ms. Blatchford, trials should be dull (in the entertainment sense) and even more so trials for murder. The purpose the “Law & Order” TV franchise is entertainment not truth. The purpose of the real criminal law & order franchise — the justice system — is truth.
It seems to me that, rather than complaining, the Globe & Mail and Ms. Blatchford ought to have commended the Crown for avoiding sensationalism, for honoring the standards of proper prosecutorial conduct in the pursuit of justice even if the result was that the Crown’s opening statement was, for her “dull”.
The comments about the article, on the Globe website, make the same points, albeit more pointedly and in fewer words. There are 5 shown under the “latest comments” heading.