No one likes to admit they are/were wrong. Maybe we all have a tendency to justify what we’ve previously said/asserted. In a way, the true test of a person’s character is the willingness to quickly admit to one’s error. In a way, tunnel vision is (very) intentional.
Three (other) points:
1. The true role of a prosecutor is not “finding the defendant guilty.” Similar to every Starfleet officer in Star Trek, a prosecutor’s first duty is to the truth. In contrast, a lawyer’s first duty is to his/her client. Why? A: Only then does it become a fair fight (in the grand scheme of things).
2. Being interrogated by police/prosecution is more stressful than people normally think. Even when there is no outright coercion involved. It is by no means coincidence people sometimes commit suicide during an investigation (in Korea). My advice is: never, ever admit to anything you did not do or see/hear. And remind yourself to keep your dignity, if possible.
3. Victim’s families also have a duty, at least, to think about whether the police/prosecution are going after the right person. To me, blindly wanting to put just anyone behind bars is as wrong as committing a crime. The following text is from a Wikipedia article about Chandra Levy:
On October 26, 2010, Levy’s then-64-year-old father, Robert, took the stand and refuted statements about his past suspicions of Condit. Robert Levy testified that he told authorities during the early years of the investigation that his daughter Chandra would have been too cautious to jog in the woods alone, but said that he no longer believed this to be true. He said that he also told police that his daughter and Condit had a five-year plan between them to get married. In retrospect, Robert Levy admitted: “I just said whatever came to mind just to point to him as the villain.”
Thanks for reading! Have a great week!
Btw, I also recommend this documentary: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2380247/
FYI, my next post will probably be titled “What is 구속?”