As I listened to him, and I was less than 10 feet from him, my first feelings were of great dislike, but then my feelings moved to significant sympathy for the tragedy of his situation, both for him and for his victims. 

One could, perhaps, see him too, as a victim of the “world, the flesh, and the Devil.” 

Perhaps, like Jesus said, "A sheep without a shepherd."

I recall here, too, the lyrics of that wonderful old hymn, “He Breaks the Power of Cancelled Sin He Sets the Prisoner Free.” 

We older believers in the Lord Jesus Christ should be able to look back and see God's work as he has broken the power of sin in our lives, these sins being "cancelled," righteousness being imputed to us by our faith.

Looking back I praise God for one completed past victory, and for three others I see are in progress with very noticeable improvement on-going.

New Testament passage, Romans 4: (Our righteous standing with God is imputed based on true faith in Christ)

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

² For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

³ For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

⁴ Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

⁵ But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

⁶ Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

⁷ Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

⁸ Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

⁹ Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

¹⁰ How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

¹¹ And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

¹² And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

¹³ For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

New Testament passage Philippians 2: (We work cooperatively with God, but it is HE who mightily works in us)

Had the attorneys for the two sides NOT cut a deal, with an agreement for voluntary civil commitment, there would have been eye witness testimonies, and testimonies of the psychiatric experts for both sides.

The Judge told us the State had the burden of proof to prove three things, beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. That the respondent (defendant) was indeed a violent sexual predator.

2. That he had a mental condition, such that he could not help doing these things.

3. That he was likely to re-offend were he released from confinement into the general public.

Excuse my cynicism -- I think the "Criminal Justice," or "Legal system" is a big, big business, Juggernaut.

Lawyers, etc., make lots of $$$.

Are they really interested in reducing crime, or do they want lots and lots more of it, so they can get rich on their fees?

Then, there are the prison systems.

I'm guessing -- I'll bet it takes $30,000+ to warehouse a prisoner, for a year - it could be more.

Congress and the Legislatures are mostly lawyers - the more rules, regulations, the more the fees flowing into lawyer's pockets.

Seems to me, we must have a collision course taking place between the big, big, expensive legal, juggernaut, and an increasingly anemic economy.

Maybe we will have to go back to the ball and chain, instead of expensive civil commitments, or maybe electronic bracelets, or maybe chain-gangs.

Maybe we just need to euthanize according to the three-strikes-and-you-are-out-rule. (Did I really say that?)

Jury duty is certainly an eye-opener.

In the criminal trial on which I was a jury member, it is very clear to me the law was terribly unjust, and it probably still is.  Yet the judge said we had to follow it.

A woman had obtained a no-contact order against a man.  He moved to another city.

But, later, she got to missing him, and tracked him down to the house where he was living, in the new city he had moved to.

While he was away at work, she broke into his house, and when he got home, there she was, halfway through a six-pack of beer, and in a really ornery mood.

Believe it or not, according to our state law, HE WAS GUILTY, right then and there.

Obviously the law is obscenely unjust.

As judges have always pointed out, we have go by the law, like it or not.

Fortunately, the lawyer and the judge alerted the jury to a "defense" the man might use.

A person has the legal right to defend his/her stuff.

If we decided, that he thought she might trash his stuff, then he had the legal right to stay and defend it, and this would provide a legal "defense" against the charge of violating the no-contact order.

She was half way through a six pack of beer and belligerent.

In fact she smashed a half full can of beer into his face.

So, we the jury, decided, he certainly needed to stay and defend his stuff, and, so, he was, thus, acquitted.

Let me touch upon something called "jury nullification."

The U.S. Constitution is suppose to be the supreme law of the land.

But, what if the judge's strict legal instructions, or state law for that mater, run directly contrary to the constitution?

I suspect there are occasions where juries, in their hearts, decide to disregard contrary state law, or the judge's instruction.

I certainly would not want to admit such a thing, if I were to do it. 

What if in conscience before God, or to do right with God, you feel God wants you to do as I just suggested?

In the civil trial of the business man suing the French company, we thought jury selection was so weird.

We realized later, they wanted jurors who knew what constituted a valid, legal, oral, business contract.

That was our job on the jury, to see if they two parties had a "meeting of the mind."

That is, were they really in agreement as to what they were trying to contract for?

The evidence was equally divided on each side.

The jury instructions specifically forbid "flipping a coin."

It finally came down to the behavior of the two parties when they went out to lunch following their oral agreement.  An oral agreement IS legal in our state, even for large sums.

The two parties "clinking their glasses."  Did this mean they were in agreement?

Sounds crazy, the evidence was so evenly divided, that is all we had to decide on.

In this civil suit, 10 of the 12 jury members were all that was needed to decide the matter.

They decided "clinking glasses," meant they had a "deal."

Two of us said, "no way."

But the 10 decided the case on the clinking of the glasses.

One more thing I though of as we were finishing up this case.

Suppose the local business man, and he seemed to be a sly dog, saw a slick way to make some millions of $.

I am guessing the cost of the lawyers and court cost would have be, maybe, $300,000.

But, he was suing for $20 million.

I would not be surprised if he decided to "roll the dice."

He DID, in fact, win the court case.

I would guess the $20 million was shooting for the moon, and that the Judge gave his much less.

But, by "rolling the dice" he may have made a very handsome profit.

I wonder how many law suits are filed by sly dogs who just want to see if they can make a killing.