Since when has it become a travesty of justice for an American citizen to exercise his Constitutional rights? While some would say it hasn’t, two recent nationally prominent cases have called into question the American perception of what rights someone has in our judicial process.

The two legal hearings most prominent today are the O.J. Simpson trial and the Randy Weaver hearings.

Recent attention has been paid to Mark Fuhrman, the now-infamous man who was one of the first police officers at the site of the Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman murders. His notoriety stems from some nasty audio tapes on which he discusses some racially motivated abuses of police powers in which he engaged.

After these tapes became public knowledge, Fuhrman chose to exercise his 5th amendment privilege in response to questions from Simpson’s defense team.

In the hearings stemming from white separatist Weaver’s armed conflict with FBI agents that ended in the death of his wife, FBI sharpshooter Lon Horiuchi, who killed Weaver’s wife and wounded a family friend, also chose to exercise his Constitutional right to not incriminate himself.

Both of these issues have drawn sharp criticism, with opponents calling their choice to “take the 5th” disappointing, and some even calling it a travesty of justice.

What travesty? This is part of the judicial process, part of what rights American citizens have under the laws under which our nation functions.

And as reluctant as we are to defend an obvious racist and a potential participant in an illegal killing, it is the principal of the law that we must remember. These laws, as frustrating and time consuming as this sometimes is, must apply to all of our citizens, or none of us are truly free.