In courtrooms across America credibility of witnesses is questioned because of past behavior. Yet, admitted liars are believed if their testimony helps a case.

In addition to credibility, a term often heard in the legal world is quid pro quo, defined as “something for something.” Such a transaction plays a role in many corruption cases.

A plea deal could be an example of quid pro quo. The prosecutor gives something (leniency) for something (information).

There are many reasons one makes a plea deal. He may be guilty and trying to reduce his sentence, financially unable to defend himself, coerced (another legal term) with threats to involve family members, sparing his family financial and emotional stress, or tired of fighting a force bigger than himself — such as a special counsel with unlimited time, scope and finances.

Many are excited over what information Michael Flynn may give Robert Mueller’s investigation. Many of these are opponents of enhanced interrogation discrediting the value of any information obtained. If a prisoner will say anything to stop the interrogation, might not a defendant be so desperate as to say anything to ensure his plea deal?

As the public becomes more aware of the tactics used in our judicial system, the conflicting attitudes toward similar scenarios and the blatant evidence of justice inequality at all levels, is it any wonder at the waning trust in and respect for our justice system?

Jackie Cannon, Auburndale