Like it or not—and many of us don’t—but David Bain was found not guilty of murder in his long-delayed retrial.
Not guilty. Not innocent, no, because courts can’t determine that, but not guilty. That was the jury’s verdict: not guilty of murder.
And imperfect as it is, the court system we have is still the best we have to determine guilt in criminal cases—and the jury on the case heard far more of the evidence than we did, who had to rely on a headline-hunting media for our soundbites.
So given his years in prison, given the verdict, given what seems to be the verdict of an independent judge brought over from Canada to assess the evidence on a civil standard of proof—which seems to be that David Bain is “innocent on the balance of probabilities” and therefore deserves compensation from the justice system for the system having failed him—why then shouldn’t he get it?
That’s what justice would be, wouldn’t it?