03-28-2015, 08:47 AM
...but don't forget there are obvious cases where someone was been found "not guilty" where they were obviously guilty.
Your point?
In truth of the matter, how do you know OJ was obviously guilty?
What evidence do you have that wasn't presented in court?
And there lies the rub. Evidence.
There are many, many examples of fools saying "You know he's guilty…" or "You know that's what they'll do first chance…" or whatever their bias and prejudice tells them. Yet they have no actual proof supporting their declaration. God for bid they say "I believe…" instead of "You know…"
There is no foolproof system of justice. There will always be error somewhere. You try not to punish the innocent in pursuit of the guilty.
There's a reason why the 6th amendment says: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."
Like that's the norm for us.
Lawyers are the big reason that some people wait for years before their case even goes to trial. That's generally because the defendants are in no hurry for their "day in court". I find it incomprehensible that these clowns often serve on juries. That's a scary flaw in the justice system.
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.
For the record, though I don't know it for a fact, I believe OJ committed double homicide. But I couldn't vote guilty on first-degree bases on the evidence presented.
Now considering the stuff overlooked and a charge of second-degree, that's a different story.
Your point?
In truth of the matter, how do you know OJ was obviously guilty?
What evidence do you have that wasn't presented in court?
And there lies the rub. Evidence.
There are many, many examples of fools saying "You know he's guilty…" or "You know that's what they'll do first chance…" or whatever their bias and prejudice tells them. Yet they have no actual proof supporting their declaration. God for bid they say "I believe…" instead of "You know…"
There is no foolproof system of justice. There will always be error somewhere. You try not to punish the innocent in pursuit of the guilty.
There's a reason why the 6th amendment says: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..."
Like that's the norm for us.
Lawyers are the big reason that some people wait for years before their case even goes to trial. That's generally because the defendants are in no hurry for their "day in court". I find it incomprehensible that these clowns often serve on juries. That's a scary flaw in the justice system.
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.
For the record, though I don't know it for a fact, I believe OJ committed double homicide. But I couldn't vote guilty on first-degree bases on the evidence presented.
Now considering the stuff overlooked and a charge of second-degree, that's a different story.