"Dog Mauling" Verdict, and the Ethical and Moral Implications That Accompany Them.

In the end of the "Dog Mauling" documentary the couple who owned the dogs, received their verdict. Marjorie Knoller was tried for manslaughter, and on a more severe note second degree murder; while her husband Robert Noel was tried for just manslaughter. They, Marjorie and Robert, were found guilty for all they were charged with. This case was special in the way that the public and the geographic location of the incident had a profound affect on how fair the trial was. The incident had taken place in San Francisco, and the victim was an innocent lesbian. The public was outraged at how unaffected and selfish the defendants were before and during the trial. Robert and Marjorie had "attacked" the victim; saying that if she had only gone closed the door, or had not worn perfume on that fateful day that she may still be alive today. Marjorie had even gone so far as to make a statement that made it seem as if she were a victim, and that she would never be the same again. She never mentioned anything about her remorse for Diane's untimely death, or even try to comfort Sharon (Diane's partner). San Francisco is one of the world's most accepting cities, especially when it comes to homosexuality. The general populace was overwhelmed with feelings of anguish, disgust, and anger which would make it almost impossible to have an impartial jury, which would lead to an unfair trial. This would be unethical because the American justice system prides itself in having the most unbiased and fair trials that are possible. The trial was moved to LA in the hopes that selecting unbiased jury members would be easier, but by that time it was already too late; almost everyone in California had heard of the case, and no one was on the defendant's side. The "Dog Mauling" case wasn't the most just case we have studied, but can every aspect of a trial ever be truly fair?