Irony and the Law

In his written decision to reduce Woodward's conviction from second-degree murder to manslaughter, the judge wrote the following paragraph:

The law, John Adams told a Massachusetts jury while defending British citizens on trial for murder, is inflexible, inexorable, and deaf: inexorable to the cries of the defendant; "deaf as an adder to the clamours of the populace." His words ring true, 227 years later. Elected officials may consider popular urging and sway to public opinion polls. Judges must follow their oaths and do their duty, heedless of editorials, letters, telegrams, picketers, threats, petitions, panelists, and talk shows. In this country, we do not administer justice by plebiscite. A judge, in short, is a public servant who must follow his conscience, whether or not he counters the manifest wishes of those he serves; whether or not his decision seems a surrender to the prevalent demands.

After writing something so judicial and high-minded, he then proceeded to set Woodward free, based on the idea that she had already served enough time while waiting for trial (about 9 months). This, of course, only after massive "outcry" from Woodward's friends, family, and complete strangers who were sure a sweet-faced 19-year-old couldn't have killed anyone. Many of these people have already decided that the parents themselves are guilty of killing their own child, based largely on their faces and reactions on TV and during the trial (not to mention the district attorney; they didn't like his face either). Don't take my word for it; look on any of the public message boards, such as Town Online.