Robert Blake not guilty!!!
- Thread starter rafterman
- Start date
There's a match made in heaven 
Who would be pitching and who would be catching in that cell after lights out?
Who would be pitching and who would be catching in that cell after lights out?
H
Hardatwork
Not entirely true Hifi. There was this...hifisex said:it wasn't a good day for Lady justice on either side of the 49th today
HFS
Scott Peterson Gets Death Sentance
I find it odd that so many people can make judgments of people’s innocents or guilt based solely on information they receive from the media.
Blake
Jacko
Peterson
OJ
Richard Jewel
The Air India guys.
Our justice system is really very simple and thank God it is.
A person is innocent of a crime until such times as the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime.
If the prosecution does not prove their case the person goes free and can not be charged again.
What part of this simple process would you like changed?
- The government can make multiple attempts to get a conviction.
- They only need to present weak circumstantial evidence.
- They only need to meet the test of a civil trial (the person was more likely than not to have committed the crime).
- The side with the best PR firm that gets Gloria Alred to show that toothy smile of hers wins.
Sorry people I do not trust ABC / NBC / CBS / CBC / CTV or even fair and balanced FOX News to provide the information needed to determine innocents or guilt.
So rather than take a poll on who thinks Blake is innocent or guilty, let's try a poll on who thinks we should change our legal system so it is easier to find some one guilty.
Blake
Jacko
Peterson
OJ
Richard Jewel
The Air India guys.
Our justice system is really very simple and thank God it is.
A person is innocent of a crime until such times as the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime.
If the prosecution does not prove their case the person goes free and can not be charged again.
What part of this simple process would you like changed?
- The government can make multiple attempts to get a conviction.
- They only need to present weak circumstantial evidence.
- They only need to meet the test of a civil trial (the person was more likely than not to have committed the crime).
- The side with the best PR firm that gets Gloria Alred to show that toothy smile of hers wins.
Sorry people I do not trust ABC / NBC / CBS / CBC / CTV or even fair and balanced FOX News to provide the information needed to determine innocents or guilt.
So rather than take a poll on who thinks Blake is innocent or guilty, let's try a poll on who thinks we should change our legal system so it is easier to find some one guilty.
Agreed, there is no such thing in our system of proving innocents. The presumption is you are innocent. The government must prove you guilty. If the jury finds you Not Guilty that means the government did not meet their burden of proof and therefore you are still innocent (as the person was at the start of the trial).tunatacoeater said:
Our system is not perfect and I believe there are many crimes that the person who did the crime is found not guilty and therefore is not punished. Unfortunately there are people who did not commit the crime that are found guilty and do pay the penalty.
One of the inevitabilities of our myriad Laws and the complex legal system that feeds off them is that the public at large is easily hoodwinked into believing that the outcome of a trial has to do with whether or not the defendant actually committed his/her crime. This is a gross fallacy.
Trials have more to do with procedures, and little to do about actions that took place. This is why the wealthy man gets off whereas the poor man hangs. The truly wealthy man can afford a team of lawyers backed by a team of research assistants that spend countless hours finding precedents or loopholes in the Law that invariably persuade our judges or juries to question their better judgment when arriving at a verdict, and set the guilty free.
Add to that a growing political influence in our courts, and we now have genuine reason to expect the worst from our best.
Trials have more to do with procedures, and little to do about actions that took place. This is why the wealthy man gets off whereas the poor man hangs. The truly wealthy man can afford a team of lawyers backed by a team of research assistants that spend countless hours finding precedents or loopholes in the Law that invariably persuade our judges or juries to question their better judgment when arriving at a verdict, and set the guilty free.
Add to that a growing political influence in our courts, and we now have genuine reason to expect the worst from our best.
Luckydog, I finally find myself agreeing with you!luckydog71 said:
Except for the part about Fox News being "fair and balanced" (but I'm pretty sure you had your tongue firmly planted in your doggy cheek).
For all the talk of right wing/liberal bias in the media, the main thing to remember in relation to all stories in the media is that the media is a BUSINESS. Nobody reads a paper to hear "Today, nothing happened." So in any story, the more sensational aspects get priority. As well, any news story has to be edited for time or column length, by an editor who may not know enough about the story to make cuts that don't change the whole direction of the story. Finally, just remember that reporter's go to school for a degree in JOURNALISM, not criminal law, or military matter's, or molecular biology. So if you sound like you know what you're talking about, the press will listen to you and report your statements. It is a given in the journalism field that you can always print a retraction later rather than miss a deadline.
