Posts: 48,066
Threads: 9,823
Joined: Dec 2021
Reputation:
0
Your point?
You are correct, I don't know for a fact that O.J. was guilty. But you left out the next important sentence:
"Even if they confess to the crime later on, I don't think you can put them on trial again, can you?"
forget about the O.J. example. it was a bad choice of example on my side.
Suppose that person X was found not guilty, then they go out and brag that they killed Jane Doe. Can you do anything, anything at all to put them in jail? that was my question. Or my point I guess. I am curious to find out.
Don't get me wrong, between the US and Italian justice system, I would prefer the US one.
Posts: 25,452
Threads: 2,519
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Really glad this is over for her. She can get on with her life now. I think that both Amanda and her family handled this with a great amount of dignity and grace.
There are definitely some different conversations taking place now with American students who head abroad to study.
Posts: 52,245
Threads: 2,802
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
2
"Even if they confess to the crime later on, I don't think you can put them on trial again, can you?"
I didn't realize that was particularly important to you.
No, on the face, there is nothing that can be done in the US justice system, if the assailant confesses, in reference to the crime committed.
So, you're saying that the state should get as many "do-overs" as it wants until it finally finds a jury that will convict. Are you serious?
I don't see anywhere where I said that at all.
But I suppose a self-proclaimed radical and an insane one, you are free to infer and mischaracterize as much as you want.
Enjoy.
Posts: 28,821
Threads: 209
Joined: May 2025
space-time wrote:
Suppose that person X was found not guilty, then they go out and brag that they killed Jane Doe. Can you do anything, anything at all to put them in jail retry them?
Only under very particular circumstances:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeop...ted_States.
Posts: 28,821
Threads: 209
Joined: May 2025
freeradical wrote:
[quote=RAMd®d]
I also find it incomprehensible that an appeals court can find someone guilty after they've already been found not guilty. It really boggles the mind.
As far as I'm concerned, it's the same principle as finding some innocent after they've already been convicted.
So, you're saying that the state should get as many "do-overs" as it wants until it finally finds a jury that will convict. Are you serious? :nuts:
That's not at all what he said. What he said is that, in his opinion, one scenario is logically equivalent to the other.
Posts: 28,821
Threads: 209
Joined: May 2025
freeradical wrote:
[quote=N-OS X-tasy!]
[quote=freeradical]
So, you're saying that the state should get as many "do-overs" as it wants until it finally finds a jury that will convict. Are you serious? :nuts:
That's not at all what he said. What he said is that, in his opinion, one scenario is logically equivalent to the other.
And that is the problem.
Ummm... logically equivalent and morally equivalent are two completely different things. You mistakenly seem to believe he was making an argument for the latter.
