Thursday, January 20, 2011

Judiciary Pranksters Zing Elisa Baker for Bigamy

The news this week in the murder case of 10-year-old Zahra Baker is... bland.  Zahra's stepmother Elisa Baker, who has not been formally named as a suspect, was indicted for bigamy this Tuesday, January 18.  This charge comes in addition to her previous indictment in October for obstruction of justice.

Okay, we get it.  You really think the lady was involved in this unfortunate case.  And she may well have been, but didn't Government 101 teach us that old truism "innocent until proven guilty?"

No, the charges aren't groundless.  Elisa Baker was, in fact, still married to her former husband for over a year after entering holy matrimony with new catch Adam Baker.  The issue here is not the basis of the charge, but its timing.

To me it seems, perhaps, a bit too convenient that these charges would surface now, just months after the tragic death of Baker's stepdaughter.  We've seen it all before: controversial or high-profile cases being deferred to smaller charges just  to 'put the guy away' (see Julian Assange and the "rape" allegations he now faces).

The moral of this smear story seems to conflict with the old ideas of guilt and innocence in a court of law: if enough people believe you deserve it (i.e. more than just attorneys, even the media/public), you will be blamed and punished.

Cases like this should open our eyes to the not-so-objective point of view of the American justice system.  When a technically harmless crime is used as an excuse to keep an assumed 'criminal' in a bad light or even behind bars, the real joke becomes the laws themselves.

Hey.  I'm Rebecca Jones.  I'm into film, cooking and body modification.
You talkin' to me? @reba_


  1. A good succinct piece. A few comments: I wish you had summarized the overall story from the start. Knowing nothing about the case, I felt unclear about the case she was involved in before this bigamy case. Place that at the very beginning. Apart from that the article makes it apparent that you're suspicious of such specious laws, but why should the average person care if such laws stay on the books and used to smear people? You're not comparing bigamy laws with rape laws, right? I think your last point begins to answer the final question of why other people should care, but stops short by merely stating that you consider bigamy laws pointless rather than discussing the social consequences of using such laws as they were here. I'm curious about your thoughts on this.

  2. Actually, Daniel, my first link leads to a news story about the girl's murder.

  3. Thank you very much for your comment.