Duckwater 0 #1 November 20, 2006 It is not just that OJ got away with murder, just that he is making money from it, not just that society is so consumed by it.... It is the fact that nobody will admit that our justice system is inheriently flawed. You have to think of the Constitution as a Business Plan. A business plan for a corporation written 20 years ago is worthless today, much less one written over 200 years ago. The whole idea of trial by jury is rediculous. You can't expect 12 random people off the street to be able to comprehend the complexity of evidence and judicial process, especially today. Trials today WASTE most of their time explaining complex science to neophytes and the rest of the time showboating. Prosecutors try to convict, even if they have a good idea or even proof that someone is innocent. (Duke Rape Case) They PERSONALLY dont want to Lose. Defenders try to get acquittal in the same way. The whole OJ defense team knew damn well he was guilty, but they PERSONALLY won the GAME. They convinced an ignorant jury that the overwhelming DNA was planted in the most intricate frame up ever and played off the undefunded, undertalented prosecutions mis-cues. A juror said when asked how they could refute the DNA evidence "lots of people have the same blood type". We need to eliminate double jeopardy. While we need protections against malictious prosecution, if evidence surfaces after an acquittal that there was negligence on the part of the jury, prosecution or defense...A re-trial can be given. Please, should it be morally, legally, or constitutionally permissible to admit to a murder after an acquittal? Something is very broken. How many innocent people are in jail because some poor sap had to get the public defender that was up against the esperienced prosecutor? We should promote defense lawyers to convince their clients to plead guilty if they truly are. We should encorporate a system much like a Military Court Martial. A panel of 7 elected judges, all educated and qualified would decide your fate. This would shorten all trails dramatically, and a bunch of lawyers would be jobless. No showboating, no explaining DNA to a high school dropout. Just the facts and evidence. I personally would not want to rest my fate on 12 strangers off the street, guilty or innocent. When I meet 12 people, at least 8 are complete idiots. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gene03 0 #2 November 21, 2006 WTF? "Kill them all, God knows His own." Sorry, no way.“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him. Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Duckwater 0 #3 November 21, 2006 Oh..Im against the death penalty, as long as prison is worse than serving in the military. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trae 1 #4 November 21, 2006 in reply to "The whole idea of trial by jury is rediculous. You can't expect 12 random people off the street to be able to comprehend the complexity of evidence and judicial process, especially today . " .................................................. Have to agree with this The 12 man jury system would 've looked advanced in the wild west or early colonial times...but now. ?? Do you get a patient well informed jury of your peers willing to objectively & systematically work their way through all the presented material or the '60minutes' jury eager to get to the bar or home to the telly ? In many ways the modern justice system is more like gambling with your destiny. I suppose unless you have the $$$ to throw at the best it can become a roll of the dice whether you will actually see any justice prevail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #5 November 21, 2006 The Jury System: "Your fate is based on whose lawyer is better able to bullshit twelve unemployed slobs."Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #6 November 21, 2006 QuoteIt is the fact that nobody will admit that our justice system is inheriently flawed. Our system is flawed. The flaws are not inherent with the system, but rather with the use of the system. It's like saying that people dying under perfectly good parachutes prove that parachutes are inherently flawed. QuoteYou have to think of the Constitution as a Business Plan. The Constitution actually says I can think of it like soiled toilet paper if I want. But, I prefer to think of it as an Instruction Manual for the operation of the government machine. QuoteA business plan for a corporation written 20 years ago is worthless today, much less one written over 200 years ago. Well, the instruction manual for human reproduction is even older, and it works fine. While we have different ways of going about it, "sperm meets egg" is still the standard after all these eons. Governmental policy is the driving force between "courtship," "getting her drunk," etc. QuoteThe whole idea of trial by jury is rediculous. You can't expect 12 random people off the street to be able to comprehend the complexity of evidence and judicial process, especially today. Frommy experience, they usually do a pretty good job. QuoteTrials today WASTE most of their time explaining complex science to neophytes and the rest of the time showboating. Showboating? Yes. I hate it. Waste of time explaining science? No. I disagree wholeheartedly. If some gizmo says I did something, I'd damn well want to see whether 12 people off the street can buy it! QuoteProsecutors try to convict, even if they have a good idea or even proof that someone is innocent. (Duke Rape Case) They PERSONALLY dont want to Lose. Well, not exactly. I hate prosecutors. It's not because they don't want to lose (though that is a part of it). I hate it because the Prosecutor in the Duke Rape Case faces no consequence. He can't be sued, you know. I hate that. QuoteDefenders try to get acquittal in the same way. The whole OJ defense team knew damn well he was guilty, but they PERSONALLY won the GAME. I agree that plenty do. But most of the cases will find a defense attorney who is there to balance out the asshole prosecutors. I tip my hat to them, especially because they are usually so villified. QuoteThey convinced an ignorant jury that the overwhelming DNA was planted in the most intricate frame up ever and played off the undefunded, undertalented prosecutions mis-cues. A juror said when asked how they could refute the DNA evidence "lots of people have the same blood type". To me, this shows the piss-poor job the prosecutors did, too. QuoteWe need to eliminate double jeopardy. While we need protections against malictious prosecution, if evidence surfaces after an acquittal that there was negligence on the part of the jury, prosecution or defense...A re-trial can be given. Please, should it be morally, legally, or constitutionally permissible to admit to a murder after an acquittal? Something is very broken. Fuck that. Takethe DA in the Duke Case. Do you think that if he had the chance, he wouldn't keep putting these guys on trial again and again until he finally won? THAT is why double jeopardy is there. If you are gonna put a guy on trial for his life, you damn sure better have the goods. QuoteHow many innocent people are in jail because some poor sap had to get the public defender that was up against the esperienced prosecutor? I'd take a PD over any other defense attorney in the phone book. They do their job because they like it and actually take their oaths seriously. To me, this is the fault of DAs, not PDs. QuoteWe should promote defense lawyers to convince their clients to plead guilty if they truly are. Which they do. But, if a DA won't accept a lesser charge that capital murder and go for the deat penalty, what the hell do defendants have to lose by making the prosecution PROVE their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why they are called plea BARGAINS. QuoteWe should encorporate a system much like a Military Court Martial. A panel of 7 elected judges, all educated and qualified would decide your fate. This would shorten all trails dramatically, and a bunch of lawyers would be jobless. No showboating, no explaining DNA to a high school dropout. Just the facts and evidence. It would merely mean less showboating and more plea bargaining. You'd STILL have t explain the science. It's the rules of evidence, after all. QuoteI personally would not want to rest my fate on 12 strangers off the street, guilty or innocent. When I meet 12 people, at least 8 are complete idiots. I'd rather take my chances convincing just one person out of 12 that there is a reasonable doubt than put all or nothing on a judge. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #7 November 21, 2006 The Real Travesty ? Being one of OJs kids. Waking up to hear about the book that talks about how your mother was murdered. Finding out that your father unapologetically wrote it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #8 November 21, 2006 QuoteI'd rather take my chances convincing just one person out of 12 that there is a reasonable doubt than put all or nothing on a judge. This really hit me. Especially when a judge "public servant" could always have ulterior career goals. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #9 November 21, 2006 QuoteI personally would not want to rest my fate on 12 strangers off the street, guilty or innocent. When I meet 12 people, at least 8 are complete idiots. Those are your peers. Despite that, somehow you're saying that at least 25% of complete idiots have above average intelligence. Forgive me if I don't want that kind of logic altering the Constitution of my country. I think the party line response to someone who thinks our system is all fucked up is, "You're welcome to leave and find somewhere better." Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Duckwater 0 #10 November 22, 2006 Ummmm.... Where do you get 25%? If you are saying that I think 25% of people in general are not complete idiots from my statement that 8 in 12 people are idiots, then I fail to see your math. Your logic of, "if you think it is broken, leave it" is about as logical as leaving a car on the side of the road because it broken down instead of taking the time to fix it. Your 'math' might be right on though, according to statistics, 25% of the population is above average in IQ. 100 is considered average. Whats your IQ? IQ <75 = 5% 75–90 = 20% 90–110 = 50% 110–125 = 20% >125 = 5% Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #11 November 22, 2006 I think I see the problem. You call 100 the average (correct), but then only attribute 25% of the population to be "above average" which you've apparently redefined as the range between 90 and 110. In fact, intelligence demonstrates a normal distribution, thus approximately 50% of the population falls above the average and 50% below. That 50% also fall within one standard deviation doesn't change how many are on either side of the mean. In 12 random people, approximately 6 of them will have above average intelligence and 6 will have below average intelligence. If 8 out of every 12 are complete idiots, than either 2 of those 8 (25%) are complete idiots with above average intelligence, or the people you are meeting are skewed to the lower end of the curve. My IQ is immaterial to this discussion, provided I have the intelligence to explain my point. As long as I've related that the average is a specific number rather than a range, that goal has hopefully been met. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
