How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 The american community
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

The american community

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


0 posted 10-14-2008 06:11 PM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju


Hey y'all

I am curious dies anyone think OJ Simpson is innocent in either trial now.  Would it be racism to think He was guilty.  Would you be warped by white America?

When I was a child this case was like Sacco and Vincetti in the mid 1990's.  

Such questions of racism and such I did not understand till I was in the ninth grade. Large crowds of people   marched to prove OJ's innocents.  They signed posters and such drawing pictures of the ordeal.  

Allot has changed in 70 years in the united states judicial system... America too

We are still afraid of outsiders, busing proving our "Americaness" Busy Proving our kindness, our hard working Ideals, and... equality, everyone is equal-every citizen is equal.

But it is those ideals that our fathers taught us that leave us susceptible to being taken advantage of.  

Why was OJ innocent and Sacco and Vincetti guilty. Isn't this a terrible question?
    

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thougts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


1 posted 10-14-2008 07:11 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


"Would it be racism to think He was guilty.  Would you be warped by white America? "


Yes
and yes


.
Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


2 posted 10-14-2008 07:26 PM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

(:<

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thougts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 02-24-2007
Posts 1007
Santa Monica, California, USA


3 posted 10-16-2008 01:27 AM       View Profile for oceanvu2   Email oceanvu2   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for oceanvu2

Twelve people thought he was innocent in his Criminal Court (murder) trial.  Twelve people thought he was guilty in his Civil Court trial.  Twelve people thought he was guilty in his current criminal trial.

Every one is entitled to their own opinions, but (and until all the appeals on the last one are exhausted) under our judicial system these are pretty much the only opinions that count.

Oh, and per the post, it is a terrible question.  Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted of murder, not anarchy.  OJ was found not guilty of murder because, according to the jurors, he didn't do it, not because he played football.

Jimbeaux
Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


4 posted 10-16-2008 11:45 AM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

The question is if who is part of the American Community, what makes them an enemy.

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thougts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


5 posted 10-16-2008 07:31 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


'The question is if who is part of the American Community, what makes them an enemy."


Murder in most cases

"OJ was found not guilty of murder because, according to the jurors, he didn't do it,"

Not true.
It was because the dream team was able
to create enough convenient doubts
as to the motivations behind the objective
evidence.


.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


6 posted 10-18-2008 04:27 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Huan Yi and Juju,

          It is the dream team's job to create doubt.  You make it sound as though they did something bad.

     It was the job of the prosecution to prove guilt in the first trial "beyond a reasonable doubt."  They failed.

     It think it is racism to blame the jury for the failings of the prosecution and its case and the presentation they made of the case.  Vincent Bugliosi had a look at the case, wrote a book about it, and concluded that the prosecution had blown it.  Bugliosi had also been an LA prosecutor with a long string of winning murder trials.  He had the experience to come to that conclusion.

     The standard "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a higher standard, one more difficult to reach, than the one that was required to be met in the civil trial.  This was "a preponderance of the evidence."  This means more than half.  This lesser standard was met without any trouble at all in the second trial.

     The conclusion I reach is that the question was not one of racism but one of competence.  If the jury in the first trial had been presented with a case which met the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt," I believe it would have convicted, though it would have been, for many reasons, including some with racial overtones, reluctant to do so.  The issue never came up.

     I remind you that there is no such thing as an "innocent" verdict.  Once a defendant reaches trial, he or she can never be thought of as innocent again because of the effort that has been made to ruin their reputation by representitives of the state.  Some of that effort will always stick, so matter what.  The best that can be offered by the legal system is the much less satisfactory "not guilty."  From the first trial, O.J. will always be a bit more obviously "not Guilty" than other people in his position, with the emphasis on the "guilty" part of the verdict and the understanding here that the "not" part of it means more exactly "not proven."

     Efforts to go beyond the verdict are probably evidence of our own particular prejudices.

     O.J., then is probably more than fifty percent guilty, but not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, at least with those particular lawyers and that particular jury at that time.

     Ask me, though, and I wouldn't want my daughter to marry the guy.  He simply doesn't seem to have a great track record for impulse control, and he has a propensity for foolish plans.

Yours,   Bob Kaven
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


7 posted 10-18-2008 04:34 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Huan Yi and Juju,

          It is the dream team's job to create doubt.  You make it sound as though they did something bad.

     It was the job of the prosecution to prove guilt in the first trial "beyond a reasonable doubt."  They failed.  It was their job to make sure there were no "convenient doubts."  It was their job to make sure that all doubts were clearly unreasonable and easily dismissable with any thought at all.

     It think it is racism to blame the jury for the failings of the prosecution and its case and the presentation they made of the case.  Vincent Bugliosi had a look at the case, wrote a book about it, and concluded that the prosecution had blown it.  Bugliosi had also been an LA prosecutor with a long string of winning murder trials.  He had the experience to come to that conclusion.

     The standard "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a higher standard, one more difficult to reach, than the one that was required to be met in the civil trial.  This was "a preponderance of the evidence."  This means more than half.  This lesser standard was met without any trouble at all in the second trial.

     The conclusion I reach is that the question was not one of racism but one of competence.  If the jury in the first trial had been presented with a case which met the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt," I believe it would have convicted, though it would have been, for many reasons, including some with racial overtones, reluctant to do so.  The issue never came up.

     I remind you that there is no such thing as an "innocent" verdict.  Once a defendant reaches trial, he or she can never be thought of as innocent again because of the effort that has been made to ruin their reputation by representitives of the state.  Some of that effort will always stick, so matter what.  The best that can be offered by the legal system is the much less satisfactory "not guilty."  From the first trial, O.J. will always be a bit more obviously "not Guilty" than other people in his position, with the emphasis on the "guilty" part of the verdict and the understanding here that the "not" part of it means more exactly "not proven."

     Efforts to go beyond the verdict are probably evidence of our own particular prejudices.

     O.J., then is probably more than fifty percent guilty, but not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, at least with those particular lawyers and that particular jury at that time.

     Ask me, though, and I wouldn't want my daughter to marry the guy.  He simply doesn't seem to have a great track record for impulse control, and he has a propensity for foolish plans.

Yours,   Bob Kaven
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> The american community Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors