Subject:
|
Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 31 May 1999 17:48:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1030 times
|
| |
|
|
On Mon, 17 May 1999 14:25:19 GMT, Christopher L. Weeks uttered the following
profundities...
> What makes a criminal trial verdict clearly wrong? For instance with
> OJ: everyone I knew had an opinion, most of them thought he was guilty
> as hell and should fry, but a few were absolutely sure that he was
> innocent. So, he got off and everyone thought it was 'clearly wrong'.
> But, I would always ask people what their opinion was based on, since I
> was pretty sure that they weren't jurors sitting on the case, and they
> all came up with silly BS answers based on irrational interpretations of
> the crap that the news was flinging. I personally, have no idea what
> his involvement was.
>
> How often are you so involved in a criminal court case that you're sure
> that the jury was wrong? How often could you possibly have a reasonable opinion?
>
>
An argument I had often used here in relation to Louise
Woodward. (The general populace in the UK were convinced of
her innocence, but had not the benefit of the immersion the
jurors had. Something I had repeatedly tried to point out, that
they weren't presented the evidence in the same fashion. The
jurors had 7 or so hours of evidence presentation, witness
reports, analysis by experts, etc., they had 5 minutes worth
of journalist interpretaion and conjecture. Didn't work. They
were still convinced of her innocence.)
Similarly, with American friends, had similar debates relating
to the commution of the sentence to manslaughter. There was
great dispute with regards to the validity of the decision, and
whether or not it was correct. Though not changing their
opinions, (necessarily), did convince them of the necessity
for a judge to do his job, namely interpretation of the law,
how it applies to a particular case, and how political, and
victim pressures may result in an unfair interpretation of
a crime, as opposed to the verdict itself. Some consensus
was arrived in that maybe it might be beneficial for a jury
to not only arrive at a verdict, but be able to reclassify
the crime for which that verdict was given. I.e. we find her
guilty, but not of murder, but manslaughter. Something like
that. However, this is open to abuse by all sides, and can
result in mini-tyrannies. A judge could change a crime to
one more serious, as can a jury. Hope you get the idea.
--
_____________________________________________________________
richard.dee@nospam.virgin.net remove nospam.(lugnet excepted)
Web Site: http://freespace.virgin.net/richard.dee/lego.html
ICQ 13177071 AOL Instant Messenger: RJD88888
_____________________________________________________________
For the best Lego news, visit: http://www.lugnet.com/news/
Need instructions for a model? http://www.kl.net/scans/
_____________________________________________________________
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) What makes a criminal trial verdict clearly wrong? For instance with OJ: everyone I knew had an opinion, most of them thought he was guilty as hell and should fry, but a few were absolutely sure that he was innocent. So, he got off and (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
