AFTER AN INCREDIBLE five-plus years the “murder trial” of Richard Scott Harper and Michelle Sullins Reynolds in the slaying of her husband, Thad Reynolds, came to an end. There never was a “trial” of course, only a plea bargain.

What began as a double death-penalty prosecution concluded with one life-without-parole sentence for murder and one 20-year sentence for voluntary manslaughter plus burglary with credit for time served waiting out a legal system that ground to its finale so slowly it would have made a snail look like a race car.

Pretty much everyone has an opinion about the windup of this sad and lurid case born within a local church, of all places. Heck, pretty much all in the community have had an opinion and voiced it during the past five years — except this newspaper. Legitimate media with codes of ethics, a dwindling part of what readers/viewers/web wanderers are subject to these days, simply don’t offer opinions on pending criminal cases because they respect the process and efforts at impartiality of the legal system. Nor is an opinion regarding the outcome, pro or con, of any value at this time.

What is worth commenting upon is the process itself and some of the philosophies behind it that have been spotlighted by this highly publicized non-trial. It is they, far more than the satisfying/unsatisfying outcome, that deserve attention.

First: This is a community within the hang-‘em-high, eye-for-an-eye belt and elected prosecutors tend to play to that gallery. Given that at the end it became clear one of the defendants had little or no direct provable involvement regarding premeditation, that initial overkill of going for the death penalty for both parties caused added layers of legal gyrations.

The legal system is supposed to operate unemotionally. If journalists can try to keep away from emotions in such situations then so should elected officials. Or, perhaps district attorneys should be appointed and not elected (the ones in the federal system don’t run for office and seem to do a pretty good job).

Second: The uncrossed T’s and undotted I’s were pretty bad and resulted in numerous trips to the Georgia Supreme Court, the initial indictment being thrown out, evidence ruled inadmissible, three involved officers being canned on unrelated matters but thus tainting their credibility, who-pays arguments erupting between state and county and so on. The marathon length of this was due to that, not the case itself.

That’s ridiculous and also had nothing to do with the actual matter at hand. That great care should be exercised before locking up, much less executing, someone is understood. However, shouldn’t greater care also be taken in assuring that justice will be as swift and clean and clear as our system originally intended?

Third: Keeping defendants locked up in the County Jail at taxpayer expense for five and half years is unacceptable whether murder or shoplifting is involved. They were, after all, innocent until admitting otherwise in open court. Other than when homicidal maniacs or those suicidal are involved, most of the olden-day reasons for that “without bond” stuff should be declared extinct. As best is known, neither defendant posed an ongoing danger to the general population.

In this age of electronic everything going everywhere nobody who flees the long arm of the law long eludes a manhunt. House arrest with monitors, including assuring lack of communication between the defendants (which apparently wasn’t possible in the jail) would have been sufficient and way less costly to taxpayers. In the Age of the Internet isn’t it about time some thought was given to restraining targets of justice other than by putting them into the equivalent of stocks in the public square?

Fourth: It’s plain that “guilty until proven innocent” is the new legal standard. That the sheriff spied upon the defendants with nary a qualm is no big surprise; that’s the new norm. Heck, if anybody in authority simply thinks you look like a terrorist there’s nothing you do or say that won’t be monitored. All’s fair in love, war and criminal prosecutions it would seem.

Frankly, we’ve always questioned why legal systems house the “innocent until proven guilty” with the convicted in the same facility. They are totally different populations as far as legal rights are concerned. The unconvicted should have exactly the same rights as those outside the walls and the same expectation of privacy in their new “home” — particularly if residence is enforced at the point of a gun.

In this case, apparently the sheriff even got a couple of inmates to spy upon the defendants. Really? In exchange for what? Yeah, this may be the new “normal” way of doing things but given that all of us could be hauled off to the hoosegow for jaywalking and then “resisting arrest” by protesting it is a concern not limited to those accused of murder.

Fifth: Both defendants being without sufficient funds of their own the taxpayers had to pay for their lawyers and all other considerable associated costs. Looking at all the whoopsies that came to light it is legitimate to wonder if, with the personal resources of an O.J. Simpson, they would have walked away free as well.

Call us old-fashioned but isn’t justice what all should expect regardless of bank account? Perhaps all lawyers involved in criminal matters should be salaried and, as in chess, have to play either black or white depending on chance.

Sixth: The plea bargain “saved the taxpayers money” by avoiding the expenses of a trial. True — but what a laugh. Those five-plus years of incarceration and legal gyrations cost those same taxpayers a bundle and probably way, way more than an actual trial if justice had been as swift as it pretends. Maybe all defendants not tried within six months of an indictment should be released. If you’re going to stuff people into cans then perhaps, as with grocery-store shelves, there should be expiration dates.

That the state paid for some of the lawyers and the county for others is an odd distinction. Both came from the pockets of the citizens. And all that time housing, feeding, providing health care and spying on the defendants was done with tax money.

It would be no surprise to see a full, complete, accurate tally of the “bill” for this case run to more than a million dollars — with taxpayers footing both sides of the argument. Perhaps there is no better way; certainly there must be a less-expensive way.

Seventh: Badly exposed by this process should be what nobody ever seems to wonder about: the victims. No, not the deceased. In this case the two defendants between them have seven minor children. One set now is without either father or mother. The other without the father.

Oh sure, as far as is known all of them are OK because they are being taken care of by extended family, church and so forth. In at least one case, probably government resources are involved (Social Security survivors benefits).

Doesn’t anybody ever ask if that is sufficient, or why that burden should automatically be assumed without assured assistance by “family” even though nobody questions that the defendants should get all the help they need to plead their case?

If the public is going to invest this much money in “assuring justice” then why is there no safety net of similar generosity to assure the innocent secondary victims of such crimes are taken care of — fed, clothed, housed, educated and so forth?

If society is going to blow this kind of money on “justice” then shouldn’t it be even more eager to spend similar amounts on those who yet have a future as contributing members of society instead of on those who have lost their future?

Instead of debating whether Harper/Reynolds got off lightly or were punished too severely it might be a better idea to start discussing the above listed seven points and how to address them. The concept of justice is not about isolated cases. It is about the entire system. It is not about “them” nearly as much as it is about “us.”

Pierre-Rene Noth is the former editorial page editor of the Rome News-Tribune.