Posted on 11/22/2006 12:12:09 PM PST by color_tear
A failure to convict on insufficient evidence does not equate with literal innocence, just legal innocence, especially with the apparent effort at jury nullification that occurred. But, rather than living under a draconian system that does not operate under a presumption of innocence, this is the price we pay on occasion ... a clearly guilty man walking free. The alternative would be worse, but it's still absolutely galling, with book deals and television appearances.
I had to check the date you signed up cause I could have sworn from the post you were a DU troll..
DNA proved he was there..as I recall the odds were several billion to one that he was the only match..our justice system has sent people to death row based on DNA evidence alone with odds that are not nearly as high..
As far as I'm concerned, he was let off the hook by a jury that wasn't interested in facts, were confused by them, had no clue what the facts meant..only used the verdict as a way to right past injustices (in their minds)..the guy is guilty as sin..
"Best" does not mean "perfect".
I watched the entire trial. It was clear that OJ killed Nicole and Ron Brown.
The system is only as good as the people involved in any particular case. These jurors were irresponsible and as a result, a vicious killer walks freely.
A verdict does not erase the act.
He was found 'responsible' in a civil court. Different burden.
You'd be surprised.
No, it means they just don't think the verdict is just. That has nothing to do with confidence in the system, it's just an acknowledgment that no system is perfect and that now and then there is an injustice done in the justice system.
Most systems have an expectation that they will be sound in general, but it will fail now and then (since they are run by people and people fail now and then). That's not an argument against the system nor a loss of confidence in the system, but it is an argument for having the clarity to know it won't always work well and to hold people accountable when they don't work well.
An example is the police force. You can;t expect them to be 100% right, 100% of the time. We settle for a little less than 100%, knowing that the people will fail now and then, leading to a failure within the system. That's not to say it's a failure of the system, however - most mature people know that no system is perfect and that people make mistakes or behave wrongly.
It's about agreeing to a frequency & level of failure that most people find acceptable. When it happens, the system doesn't collapse - we just may be critical of the players in one part of the system.
When the frequency and level of failure get too high (and who knows what that is), there is a large loss in confidence in the system, and often people clamor for significantly changing the system.
No one bad jury verdict, nor 100, nor 1,000, has caused people to seriously change our judicial system, yet.
The distinction you are looking for here is being able to meaningfully tell the difference between a poor verdict in a case, and a horrible system on balance. You can rightfully be critical of a poor outcome without indicting the whole system.
Ask Greta Van Sustern her opinion. She was there for much of it covering it for another program before she went to Fox. It was something that could only happen in LA. Prima donnas all. I was called jury nullification and no doubt some of it was but they were led in that direction by bad administration of the law. And remember, what we have is a legal system, not a justice system.
Wow!!!! Simply Wow!!!....you have really been undercover here for a long time haven't you? You know the answer to your questions and are just trying to foment more turmoil self-examination amongst conservatives. Go away....
Whether or not somebody is guilty depends of if they did the crime.
Whether or not somebody is found guilty by a court of law depends on the vote of the jury.
Being guilty and being found guilty by a court are not the same thing.
It is certainly possible to be guilty but found not guilty. Most people think OJ falls into this catagory, and I happen to agree.
It is also certainly possible to be not guilty but found guilty. This is the situation claimed by about 90% of the people in prison at any given time.
We need what the Scots have - "Not Proven". That would clarify the verdict better than a "Not Guilt" verdict.
The prosecution cannot appeal a not guilty verdict. Once acquitted, a person can't be retried in the criminal courts for the same crime.
In the less formal sense, most people are pretty convinced he did the deed, jury finding or not. I myself have no real opinion, since I tend to avoid celebrity show trials like the plague.
He was found to be responsible in a civil court. A civil court can't find you guilty.
He was found "not guilty", which is not the same as "innocent"...........Many white racists in The South were thusly acquitted of killing blacks before the civil rights era. They are still guilty in my mind of murder just as OJ is.......
We had television in the early nineteen-nineties, if you can imagine.
Most of the TV audience saw MORE of the O.J. trial than did the jurors themselves.
In the civil case, he was found to be "responsible", which is (technically) different from "guilty."
I still say he did it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.