The Blacklist! Season six

I had started a post on some of my latest theories but upon writing a comment on someone's article I thought I would copy and paste my comment here, for now, as it references one of the theories I was going to pen here, about Elizabeth's motive for sending Reddy boy to jail. Here is the suchly comment

____________________________________

I believe USA justice systems are not entirely different from UK's. While your reasoning is strong and you refer to flaws in systems the current form of integrity could not exist without things being what they are. Everything is circumstantial and essentially laws do not exist. Forget for a moment that Raymond may indeed be innocent of historic crimes (Depending on when he assumed the identity. I assumed Elizabeth's plan was to force him to reveal his real identity in order to exonerate himself but now I am not so sure.), law is very complicated. You may think that you see someone shoot someone else and you may be disgusted. Morally that is fine. Law though is less concerned with personal morality and more with procedure, even if law was originally established to preserve traditional views on morality. So whether or not someone is legally guilty of shooting another is an entirely different story or close so: Are you telling the truth about what you saw? Could the defendant be deemed psychologically unstable or otherwise psychologically compromised and lack the will to cause harm needed (Proven intent.) in order to be found guilty? Were there mitigating circumstances where the accused were told that their family would be slaughtered if they did not perform certain tasks? Was the accused heavily sleep deprived or on medication? Was the accused effectively brainwashed or otherwise abused into believing that what they were doing was acceptable or in other ways beneficial to society or saving a life? Was the defendant indeed trying to save a life, perhaps acting on wrong information about someone's motive or maybe aiming for someone behind the one shot? These are just random examples sliding into my mind's eye but you receive the gist of my point, hopefully. You will read no doubt in the media about terrorists and whatnot being "let off." Sometimes this may be true, not that we can comment on whom is guilty and whom is not but sometimes it may happen due to a trial not being properly supported. However, really a terrorist, in legal terms anyway, would be one convicted by a court and some of those never were. They may still be dodgy but it is up to the claimant to prove how. From one angle it seems incredibly silly when you are certain you know someone's game but from the other end, especially considering how innocents go to jail around the world all the time, it reminds one to be careful. Countries operate under law, for better or for worse, rather than personal morality. So in order to try someone we all have to play the same game, effectively. I see your point about the FBI needing evidence to arrest him. Yes. You are right. But that is precisely so he can go on trial. While in some cases certain officials, be it MI5 or FBI taskforces, may have permission to shoot on site, if someone is known to be dangerous beyond measure or otherwise unhinged (Such as during the tragic case we had in England years back when an innocent man was mistaken for a terrorist and ultimately assassinated rather than being taken captive.), the usual purpose is to arrest and then proceed to liase with the justice system so a trial may take place. Where the FBI are concerned it is not a case of possessing evidence but of possessing potential evidence. Whether a court decision is later overturned or not until further notice a court's verdict is binding. The FBI wanted to arrest him because they suspected him of being guilty: that is the key phrase here. I know you can recall Ressler and the rest and how they tangoed with "him" but legally that is all irrelevant: in a court of law they would present their evidence and it would be ruled upon to see if it was indeed holding up to scrutiny. Until then everything is suspicion, hence why British police officers say, even if arresting someone they have just seen smash a window, "We are arresting you on suspicion of..." To say otherwise would be corruption. An officer can not presume to know all of the facts. Remember they are not moral police but legal police. It is not about what they think is right (Hence Ressler's struggles within the show.) but about processing people. Your statement "He can't be arrested unless he is guilty" is unfortunately incorrect. In fact, this is one of the reasons why innocent people continue to be wrongly persecuted. We act on suspicion. Sometimes we get it right and other times wrong. You are right that a case has to be built for trying to bring someone to court but essentially whether or not they are found guilty is still up in the air. And that is before we bring in corruption by police officers, contaminated jury pool, disturbed evidence, improper procedure and unlawful arrest, all of which can temporarily and sometimes permanently adjourn a trial. Essentially making an arrest is not about evidence but suspicion. As we saw today, hardly anyone knew about the immunity agreement and already that muddies the waters. Furthermore, we know that he is not really Raymond Reddington. That means that if he assumed the identity after the events committed by the real Reddington, whom the FBI were tracking for so long, he is indeed innocent of such charges. I am still hoping that this will be a cliffhanger, maybe mid season "Then finally...I shall tell you. I am innocent for I am not the man accused. The man standing before you is not Raymond Reddington." and I still hope that Katerina is somehow alive and going to appeal season's close.