»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
The american community
| The Alley |
|
The american community |
|
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams 
|
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 |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Juju - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "Would it be racism to think He was guilty. Would you be warped by white America? " Yes and yes . |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
(:< -Juju |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
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 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
The question is if who is part of the American Community, what makes them an enemy. -Juju |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. '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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
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 |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
